Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 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, Brendan Dailey, Jonah Cohen, Brad Gallagher. ABSENT: Chris LaPointe, 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: CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. #20240386 3320 Route 9, Pet Lodge. Area variance to permit an addition to Pet Lodge in the Gateway Rural Commercial District. Lori Sames, the owner, said that something needed to be confirmed with the County Planning Board following the last meeting. She said that it’s her understanding that the County said there would be little to no impact for the canopy over her boarding yards on the north side of her building. Gage Simpson, Chair said that the public comment period was still open if anyone wished to speak. There were no public comments, and the public hearing was closed at 6:32 p.m. Brendan Dailey made a motion to approve an area variance to permit an addition to the Pet Lodge at 3320 Route 9, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Shafer Gaston. Vote: B. Dailey- Y, S. Gaston-Y, B. Gallagher-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, J. Cohen-Y, G. Simpson-Y. 6-0, motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: 2. #20240552 9 Greenridge Place Garage Construction. Area variance to permit the construction of a garage with finished space within the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Variances sought for 9 Greenridge Place: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAX PRINCIPAL COVERAGE 40% 46% 6% (15%)  TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DISTANCE FROM DRIVEWAY TO 20 FT. 15 FT. 5 FT. (25%) GARAGE TO ALLEY Nicholas Denno represented the applicant. Nicholas asked what Aneisha was referencing regarding the alleyway. Aneisha said the zoning requirement in the UDO when you’re coming off an alley should be 20 ft. off the driveway, so the applicant will require additional relief because they don’t meet that requirement. Gage said they will look at the survey and discuss why it must be located where it is. Nicholas said the 15 ft. line exists now and there is a new hotel on the other side of the alleyway. If they were to move the building back it would be too close to the existing rental structure. It is currently 13.4 ft. Regarding the UDO requirement of 15 ft., Nicholas said he’s not sure what they could do to change that. He said if they were to make the garage smaller by 314 sq. ft. it would render the garage unusable. Nicholas said the current structure is 18’ by 22’ and fitting a car is tight. He said the square footage for the garage is critical because there’s a stairwell going up to the second story. Nicholas said they won’t be creating an undesirable change to the neighborhood because they are replacing the existing garage which has structural deficiencies and is in disrepair. He said renovation was being considered, but they were unable to work with the existing building because it doesn’t have a foundation, and it was being held up by rocks. Nicholas said he didn’t think the variance request was substantial at 276 sq. ft. Shafer asked if the new building will be in the same footprint as the existing garage. Nicholas said it will not be the same. The current building is 18’ x 22’ covering 396 sq. ft. He said to make the new building usable, put a second story on it, safely access it and park a vehicle in it will require 672 sq. ft., a difference of 276 sq. ft. Shafer asked why an 18’ x 22’ building wasn’t large enough to park a car. Nicholas said it is, but they also need room for storage, a stairway and a mechanical room to put hot water into the bathroom upstairs. Aneisha said they are not permitted to have a bathroom on the second floor, but they can have a half bath on the first floor. She said a bath on the second floor would make it a second dwelling. Shafer said the need for more space does not make a compelling argument, in his opinion, for a variance. Jonah asked what the distance is between the existing garage and the alleyway. Nicholas said 6 ft. He said they are moving it back to 15 ft., closer to the main house. Brendan said it would be helpful if they could reduce the coverage. Brad said he doesn’t have an issue with a half bath and office space. He asked if the applicant included the eaves in their calculation because it doesn’t add up. Brad said it would increase their ask even more than it is already. Nicholas said he would check into it. Brad said he does have concern with the size (24ft by 28 ft.), especially because it’s on an undersized lot. He would like to see the size brought down. Brad asked if it is really an improvement bringing the structure back 15 ft. from where the gravel alley is or is it an improvement from the property line. Gage said it is an undersized lot and the proposed garage is large. He said the applicant should come back with some comparable garages in the neighborhood and make sure the eaves are included in their calculation. They should also try to bring down the size of the garage which seems to be the main concern for the board. Aneisha said that if the applicant would like a bath on the second floor, they can seek a variance for that. Jackie White disclosed that Mr. Denno, the applicant’s agent, is a zoning board of appeals member on another board that her firm represents in case the Saratoga ZBA wanted counsel’s assistance on this application. She said she doesn’t think it’s a conflict requiring her firm to step aside but wanted to disclose that information. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 9,, 2024 Page 2 of 9 Gage Simpson, Chair opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. There were no public comments, and the hearing will remain open. 3. #20240558 3 Sunrise Dr. porch and garage. Area variance to permit a garage addition to the existing single-family home in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Variances sought for 3 Sunrise Dr.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED SETBACK FRONT 30 FT. 21 FT. 9 FT. (30.0%) INTERIOR SIDE 12 FT. 9 FT. 3 FT. (25%) Bob Flansburg, Dreamscapes Unlimited represented the applicant. Bob showed elevations of the existing split-level home with a walk-out basement to the rear of the building and a 14 ft. single car garage. Bob said the applicant is looking to do significant renovations to the home and update the floor plan and elevations. Bob said they are proposing an addition to the rear of the house and to raise the front steps to get rid of the split level. They will have a finished basement and are adding a master bedroom to the rear of the home behind the garage. Bob said without a variance they could have a 5ft. porch across the front, but his client would like an 8ft. porch to make it more usable. He said they would like to go from a 14 ft. to a 24 ft. two-car garage which would require 3 additional feet for the side. Bob said they surveyed the properties on either side of 3 Sunrise to get the average of the two adjoining properties which they would be allowed without a variance. He said they could go to 24 ft. without a variance but that would only give them a 5 ft. porch. Jonah asked how far they are presently from the front setback - between 27 and 28 ft. Aneisha asked if the applicant was going to be using the modified front setback. Bob said that is what is permitted in the UDO, but the setback requirement is 30 ft. Aneisha said Patrick would have to make a determination if they are asking for more than the modified front setback. Jonah asked Bob to bring back some specific examples of 24’ garages and the distances from the front setback in the neighborhood. Bob said Sunrise is a short street between Caroline St. and Fifth Ave. He said on Sunrise and Caroline there’s a newer 2-story home with a 24 ft. garage, but Sunrise itself is more of the split-level, single-story type homes. Brendan asked if any part of the garage was necessitated by the addition of the master bedroom behind the garage. Bob said no it wasn’t. Brendan agreed that he would like to see some comparable garages from the area. Shafer said he would like to see comps showing the garage size in addition to the side setback. Bob noted that the Saratoga Springs United Methodist Church parking lot is located to the rear of his client’s property. Otis asked Bob to bring comps of other porch widths in the neighborhood. He also asked if there could be a compromise on the width of the porch if possible. Gage agreed that he would like to see the comps as well. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. There were no public comments, and the hearing will remain open. 4. #20240614 Lexington Road subdivision. Area variance to permit the further subdivision of lands in the Bemis Heights/Lexington Subdivision. Dominic Derico represented the applicant, Art Curto. Art read a statement saying that he is a lifelong resident of Saratoga County and that he purchased the property in 2018 with 41 approved City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 9,, 2024 Page 3 of 9 building lots. He said he confirmed with the city at the time of purchase that the lots were taxable lots for decades. Art said after consulting with the Senior Planner and the Planning Department and updating the ACOE Wetlands map which stated there were no designated wetlands located there, they started to proceed with numerous land use options. They are currently proposing a compromised plan which will reduce the lots from 41 lots to 14 smaller lots and 2 larger lots, making it more economically feasible for the applicant. Art said the lot line adjustments are minimal and will help keep in context with the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood. Dominic displayed the current subdivision map with 39 taxable lots which could have been built as Phase 3, which was never built. Dominic said they noticed some wetland when they first looked at the property. Some beaver dams were built over the past few years which the applicant got permission from DEC to remove. Dominic said they have a final review from the Army Corp of Engineers and have a post construction notification submitted with the current layout of the subdivision. He said the ACOE will make their final decision after variances and SEQRA have been determined. He said DEC also wants to review it as well for sewer and water. Dominic said the property has been re-surveyed and they came up with their new plan. The subdivision is a cluster subdivision with 16 lots. Dominic said they need to disturb approximately 3.5 acres of wetlands at the entryway to the 21-acre lot. He said the 16-acre parcel in the back of the subdivision would be owned by Mr. Curto. His kids would own 3 lots to the south within the subdivision and the remaining 13 lots would be sold off. Dominic said they will be maximizing the lots with 1,500 sq. ft. footprints with approximately 2,300 sq. ft., 2- story homes with 2-car garages, like the homes in Beaver Pond Village. Dominic said in general no side yard setback is less than 10 ft. He said they’ve tried to meet the 30 ft. total setback on most of the lots. He said the front yard setback is about 30 ft. from the face of the garage to the edge of the road. The zoning looks for 100 ft. width and their minimum is 60 ft. so they will be asking for 40 ft. in most cases. Dominic said they are creating a 55 ft. city right-of-way. He said they have water and sewer with a pump station at the intersection of Lexington and Bemis which have been determined to be adequate. Dominic said the remaining undisturbed wetlands will be put in a conservation easement as part of the mitigation with ACOE. Gage said there was a joint land use site visit at the property the previous week where board members were able to see the property. Gage said from a zoning board perspective it appears that currently as it sits no variances are needed. Redesigning the lots is what will trigger variances. Gage said the ZBA is going to ask the planning board for their advisory opinion on the new proposal. Brendan said that avoiding the wetlands is what creates the variances. Jonah asked if the applicant had concerns about sustaining his buildable area with the wetlands increasing. Dominic said they had permission from ACOE to remove the beaver dam and to maintain a buffer between the wetlands and buildable lots. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. Julia Anderson, 8 Bemis Heights Dr. said she submitted a hard copy of her concerns and questions with Aneisha to be shared with the board. Some of Julia’s concerns are as follows:  Increased traffic and parking within the neighborhood causing safety concerns for pedestrians and drivers and emergency vehicles unable to navigate through the streets.  Currently one exit/entrance to the neighborhood with 64 homes, 16 more will make 80 homes sharing one entrance and exit onto Lake Ave. Left hand turn onto Lake currently takes one to three minutes per car. The summer months amplify the issue.  Adding 16 to 36 vehicles year-round creates a more dangerous scenario.  Possible violation of current fire codes – D102, 103 & 107. Eighty homes – one entrance, one exit. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 9,, 2024 Page 4 of 9   Wetland concerns. Two homes built in the early 2000’s (4 Bemis Heights Dr. and 31 Concord Dr.) created noticeable changes in the groundwater levels of neighboring properties. 4 Bemis Heights was built higher than the surrounding homes due to the existence of a spring that runs under its foundation. Many of the homes have sump pumps that run continuously. Additional digging and removing of soil will further impact the existing system of underground springs and reservoirs.  Disturbing wildlife habitat.  A new road, right-of-way and 15 homes on fewer than five acres of land raises serious concerns.  Lot sizes  Home sizes & price point  Further subdivision Maryrose Behen, 30 Lexington Road said she would like to hear directly from the Army Corp of Engineers regarding the wetland status. She agreed that traffic is a big issue. Maryrose asked if the city would plant trees and put in curbs along the road like they did on Lexington Rd. Will there be a cul-de-sac? How will people get out and turn around? She said she and the neighbors have a lot more questions. Blake Herlick, 18 Lexington Road said he has some concerns about the traffic on Lexington Road and the one way in and out of the neighborhood. He suggested speed bumps and a traffic light if this subdivision were to be allowed to be built. The proposed smaller lot sizes would be a significant change to the character of the neighborhood. Noreen Ferdette, 16 Lexington Road. Noreen said she moved to Lexington Road in 2001 and it’s a very nice family neighborhood with people walking with strollers and dogs. She’s concerned about their safety with the number of cars coming in and out. Rene Russell, 8 Lexington Road. Rene said she’s lived there for 25 years and is very concerned about the traffic flow coming in and out of the neighborhood. During the summer months people rent out their houses in the neighborhood and oftentimes there are 8 cars on the road outside of those homes, making it a one-way lane to get in and out of Lexington. Dave Rushman, 2 Bunker Hill Dr. Dave said he and his wife have lived there for 31 years (corner of Lexington and Bunker Hill). He said several years ago they requested a 3-way stop sign at the intersection because the traffic goes by so fast and it’s dangerous for kids playing and people walking. Name and address not audible. Built his house 41 years ago. His concern is the water level in the area. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing will remain open. Gage Simpson made a motion to seek an advisory opinion from the Planning Board regarding approval of the proposed Lexington Road subdivision layout under the UR-1 District which would create several additional variances. The motion was seconded by Otis Maxwell. Vote: B. Dailey-Y, S. Gaston-Y, B. Gallagher-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, J. Cohen-Y, G. Simpson-Y. 6-0, motion carried. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 9,, 2024 Page 5 of 9 Jackie White said the board has historically considered whether they want to coordinate review and defer lead agency status to the planning board, but it’s not required. She said it sounds like it is an unlisted action. Gage Simpson made a motion to defer Lead Agency to the Planning Board regarding the Lexington Road Subdivision. The motion was seconded by Jonah Cohen. B. Dailey-Y, S. Gaston-Y, B. Gallagher-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, J. Cohen-Y, G. Simpson-Y. 6-0, motion carried. 5. #20240639 24 Vermont St. addition. Area variance to permit the expansion of a single-family home in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Variance sought for 24 Vermont St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL 40% 42% 2% (5.0%) COVERAGE CORNER SIDE 8 FT. 0 FT. 8 FT. (100%) Applicant did not state his name. He said they purchased the house last summer. It’s an older home that was renovated in 2010-2012. He said the foundation closest to the street is original to the home (about 100 years old). He said they are looking to extend the existing office the length of the home. He said he spoke with neighbors who support the project and have submitted comments on his behalf. Brendan said they’re just over on the coverage, so if they could remove that ask it would be helpful. The applicant said originally, they calculated without the eaves. Once they added them in, they were 2% over. He said the whole addition is 173 sq. ft. and they would like to bring the walls to the edge of the existing home line. For the corner side Aneisha said the existing home is at zero and the applicant is extending that. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. There were no public comments, and the hearing will remain open. Gage said they will have something for the applicant at the next meeting. 6. #20240648 136 State St. Area variance extension of a previously granted variance in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Variances sought for 136 State 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%) Josh Nemer, Homeowner is asking for an extension of his previous variance. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. There were no public comments, and the hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 9,, 2024 Page 6 of 9 Brad Gallagher made a motion to extend the previously granted variances for 136 State St., Saratoga Springs, NY for 18 months from the date the resolution expired August 27, 2024, with a new expiration date of January 27, 2026, unless a building permit has been issued and the actual construction begun per the zoning ordinance or otherwise further extended. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Vote: B. Dailey-Y, S. Gaston-Y, B. Gallagher-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, J. Cohen-Y, G. Simpson-Y. 6-0, motion carried. 7. #20240649 93 Fifth Ave. addition and alterations. Area variance to permit the renovation of an existing single-family home in the Urban Residential -1 (UR-1) District. Variances sought for 93 Fifth Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED INTERIOR SIDE 12 FT. 9 FT. 3 FT. (25%) CORNER SIDE 25 FT. 0 FT. 25 FT. (100%) MIN TOTAL SIDE 30 FT. 21 FT. 9 FT. (30.0%) Mike Tuck, Balzer Tuck Architecture represented the applicant. Mike said they are seeking a side yard variance to build a 14.5 ft. garage where the existing 10 ft garage is on the east side of the residence, which would then extend over the side yard setback. Mike said they looked at other options such as tearing the house down and building a new house which would avoid any variances for the side yard or total side yard, but the footprint would get bigger and would require a coverage variance. He said they believe that maintaining the character of the existing home on this street and being more consistent with the side yard variance is a better approach. Mike said concerning compatibility with the neighborhood, the main part of the home is existing and relates very well to the other homes on the street. He said the additions were held shorter, so they didn’t increase the apparent mass of the house, but it does get wider. Mike said they looked at satellite images of the homes along the street to make sure that granting of this variance wouldn’t create a unique situation. He said that the narrowest gap they would end up with is right at the average of what they saw with all the homes on the street. Mike said for the corner side variance they are doing an addition on the east and west side of the residence and the overall width of the home is being driven by their desire to have all 5 bedrooms on the second floor (they have 4 children). Jonah asked Mike to explain what he meant when he said they explored other options that would have necessitated having interior spaces without direct connections to the exterior. Mike said there’s a guest suite proposed on the ground floor behind the garage that complies with the side yard setback but would be within that total. To remove that encumbrance, they would have to slide that into the center of the home which would keep the dining room and kitchen from having windows. Gage asked about the lot width. Mike said the existing lot is 90 ft. and zoning requires 100 ft. He said most of the lots are 90 ft. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. Mary Ellen Tyrrell, 95 Fifth Ave. said she thinks the house will look beautiful but it’s just a summer home for them. Mary said she is concerned about water coming into the basement because there’s City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 9,, 2024 Page 7 of 9 already an issue with it coming from other homes nearby. She said the applicant will be extending their blacktop which will cause more water. Chris Matissa, 28 Friar Tuck Way which is not near the applicant’s neighborhood. Chris said Mary Ellen is his sister and they grew up at 89 Fifth Ave. and know the neighborhood very well. He said Mary Ellen just spent $10,000 to remediate the water that’s been coming up through the basement. He feels that something should be done by the applicant to remediate the drainage. He suggested permeable pavers where the side yard comes out would be helpful. He said in terms of mass and scale it looks like a very nice project. Gage Simpson, Chair said the public hearing will remain open. The next meeting is September 23, 2024. Gage said the board doesn’t have any homework for the applicant, but water remediation would be a reasonable request. 8. #20240679 5 Leaward Way, shed. Area variance to permit the placement of a shed in the Rural Residential – RR District. Variances sought for 5 Leaward Way: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED ACCESSORY TO SIDE 30 FT. 20 FT. 10 FT. (33.3%) Artie Gentile said he has an existing shed that he would like to replace with a new 14’ by 24’ shed to house his equipment for working on his property which is mostly only accessible by foot or tractor. The property is largely made up of ponds and streams. He said he needs 6 ft. on the 30 ft. variance but asked for 10 ft. in case anything goes wrong. He said there is also a steep slope on the side of his house with some very large oak trees at the bottom that would prevent putting a shed at that location. Artie said he contacted 6 neighbors who wrote support letters, the other 2 neighbors were out of town. Gage asked if the existing shed is in the setback. Artie said it was there when he bought the house, but he thinks it’s close. Gage asked if they could change their ask to 6ft. instead of 10 ft. and Artie said they could. Brad asked if they could tilt the shed more to line up with the property line does it solve the problem. Artie said no because there’s a pond there that hooks around and when the water level is high it overspills to that area and is very wet. The front of the shed is compliant, it’s the back corner that isn’t. Shafer agreed with Gage that the applicant should ask for what is needed and if something changes then come back. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. There were no public comments, and the hearing will remain open. Gage said they should have something for the applicant at the next meeting. 9. #20240685 190 Woodlawn Single Family Construction. Area variance to permit additional first- floor elevation above grade in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Variances sought for 190 Woodlawn.: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 9,, 2024 Page 8 of 9  TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED 1ST FLOOR ELEVATION ABOVE 4 FT. 5 FT. 1 FT. (25.0%) GRADE Witt Construction – representative did not state his name. Applicant’s rep said they were before the ZBA in the spring and got relief for building coverage and corner side setback. They misinterpreted the UDO and didn’t realize they needed a variance for first floor elevation. He said the finished floor proposed is 354 and the current zoning is 353. He said the top of the foundation is 252.6 so if they went with the current zoning, they are underneath the finished floors which doesn’t work for positive drainage. The dimensional requirement is maximum 4 ft., and they are requesting 5ft. Applicant showed photos for neighborhood context. The neighbor’s home to the left, at 192 Woodlawn is at 4.75 ft. but the average is just over 5 ft. higher than the sidewalk. The house across the street at 35 Greenfield is about 10 ft. higher. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the public hearing at 8:28 p.m. There were no public comments, and the hearing was closed at 8:29 p.m. Shafer Gaston made a motion to approve a variance for additional first floor elevation above grade at 190 Woodlawn Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Jonah Cohen. Vote: B. Dailey-Y, S. Gaston-Y, B. Gallagher-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, J. Cohen-Y, G. Simpson-Y. 6-0, motion carried. Gage Simpson, Chair concluded the meeting at 8:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 9,, 2024 Page 9 of 9