Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 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, Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, Shafer Gaston, Jonah Cohen, Brendan Dailey, Chris LaPointe & Otis Maxwell ABSENT: Chris Maslak (Alternate), Robert West (Alternate) STAFF: Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, Jackie White, Counsel, City of Saratoga Springs 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. #20240848 22 Avery St. Area Variance to permit the construction of a second family dwelling on a single lot within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. 2. #20240842 1 Jefferson St. Screened in porch. Area variance to permit the construction of a screened-in porch in the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. 3. #20240837 328 Caroline St. addition and garage construction. Area variance to permit the construction of a single-car garage in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. 4. #20240836 116 York Ave. Two Story. Area variance to permit an addition to the existing single- family home in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 5. #20240767 47 Forest Ave. Area Variance to permit the construction of a single-family home in the Urban Residential- 1 (UR-1) District. 6. #20240726 132 Kaydeross Park Enclosed Porch. Area variance to permit the construction of an enclosed porch/sunroom in the PUD. ________________________________________________________________________________ NEW BUSINESS: 1. #20240848 22 Avery St. Area Variance to permit the construction of a second family dwelling on a single lot within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Variances sought for 22 Avery St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. LOT SIZE 8000 7082 918 FT. (11.5%) MIN. AVG. WIDTH 80 FT. 50 FT. 30 FT. (37.5%) REAR 25 FT. 5.5 FT. 19.5 FT. (78.0%) INTERIOR SIDE 5 FT. 2.5 FT. 2.5 FT. (50%) Trevor Flynn, Flynn Design Studio represented the applicants Bill and Ann Marie Sampson. Trevor said one of the biggest concerns of the neighbors is that the second dwelling will be an Airbnb. The applicant’s property was previously used as an Airbnb, and this will definitely not be for that purpose or for any renting at all. The applicants are retiring to Saratoga where they would like to “age in place”. Trevor said the main goal with the project when he was hired was to create a garage in the rear of the house for the applicant’s two cars. They looked at an attached and detached garage with consideration for a pool and covered breezeway. Trevor said they have a large family with kids and grandkids and are looking for more room to gather and visit for overnight stays. He said the second dwelling triggered two additional variances. He explained to his clients that if they removed the cooking appliance upstairs in the garage, they would only need two variances. Trevor showed a site plan were they will be renovating a deck and Bilco door to provide egress on the west side of the house. The existing path, deck and shed will be removed. The house is set back 24’ compared to most of the houses in the neighborhood at 10’. For this reason, they would like to place the garage further back and will need a rear variance. The mudroom addition is the reason for the side yard setback. He said the next-door neighbor is in favor but could not attend the meeting tonight. Trevor said they looked at several variations for locating the pool and found the current plan to be the most economical and feasible from a turning radius aspect. They are under the pervious area requirements and have plans to further reduce the impervious areas in a future plan by 500 to 600 ft. Regarding drainage, Trevor said water from 34 Avery drains to a low spot on 22 Avery. They will be routing the water to one area at 22 Avery with the goal of keeping the stormwater on site. Regarding the character of the neighborhood, there are 14 of 29 lots on Avery that have garages or carriage houses. The two adjacent sites, 20 and 34, both have carriage houses on them. 34 Avery is a carriage house with a tenant living there half of the year. Trevor said it’s his understanding that the owner did not get approval for that use. Trevor presented the floor plan for the renovation and construction of the 2.5 car garage. The owners would like to be able to fit two cars, a golf cart, mechanicals and pool equipment in the over-sized garage. He presented photos of homes in the neighborhood and their proximity to his client’s home as well as exterior elevations of their proposal connecting the garage to the home with a breezeway. They will be re-siding the home and replacing the roof to restore some of the previous charm of the home. Trevor said there was a large dead tree in front of the property and some by the shed that have been determined to be dead/diseased by an arborist that have been removed. Chris said the presentation was well done and helpful with regard to the neighbor’s concerns. He questioned whether the comparison to the illegal carriage house could be used. There was an City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 18, 2024 Page 6 of 6 inaudible discussion with the staff. Trevor noted that the comparison is in keeping with the existing character either way. Chris asked if the applicant considered an addition to the house with a breezeway to a garage instead of the second dwelling unit because there would be fewer variances. Trevor said they considered that, but it blocked the southern exposure for the glass on the back of the house. It would also cause some egress issues for the master bedroom and pull the driveway tight to the house limiting the turning radius. Shafer said he’s sympathetic to trying to build a second dwelling because it is zoned UR-3 and is an undersized lot, but the dimensional variances are not, in his opinion, within the intention of the UR-3. If the client didn’t need a pool, they could still have two separate structures with significantly fewer variances. He asked how many other houses in the neighborhood have inground pools. Trevor said eliminating the pool would eliminate the rear setback requirement. Otis asked if the owner would consider having the kitchen removed from the second dwelling. Trevor said he would consult with them, but he advised them previously that a kitchen in the second dwelling would be a challenge. Jonah said he was sympathetic to the client’s needs and noted that there are some inground pools on the street. He said the two separate dwellings are not a problem for him, but he agrees with Shafer that the dimensional variances are large. He asked if they considered changing the orientation of the pool to eliminate the rear yard setback. Trevor said they did consider it, but it would create more impervious area and they wouldn’t be able to keep the drainage on the site. Jonah said he would like the applicant to provide specific information on the rear setbacks for the neighboring properties. Trevor said the one to the west is 1 foot off the property line and they’re asking for 5.5 ft. to the roof overhang. Jonah said his main concern is that the proposal be within the neighborhood context. Brendan suggested that Trevor consult with his client to reduce some of the variances. He appreciates that it’s a small lot but feels there are some changes that could be made to reduce the ask. Brad agreed with others that the percentage of the ask is large. He said particularly with the rear setback there’s room for improvement. The large garage and pool are creating a very large ask. Gage Simpson, Chair said the applicant should reconsider some things based on the board’s comments. The Public Hearing was opened at 6:58 p.m. George Praught, 123 East Ave. said he’s lived in the neighborhood more than 30 years. He’s concerned with the number of people who could potentially live there. On page two of the application it says that the proposal doesn’t meet the setbacks because it’s too big. It also says that it won’t cause a detriment to nearby property – questionable. Page 8 – turning radius to the garage, where will they backwash the pool? The applicant says it drains low in the back, but it drains even lower on the property behind it. They bought the wrong house – it’s too small for what they want to do with it. Page 9 – applicant says 14 of the 29 garages are separate dwellings – George knows every one of them and they are just garages or barns with almost no one living in them. George will submit photos to the planning department for public record. Matt Poritsky, owns 23 Avery St. directly across the street and said he supports improving the neighborhood but has the following concerns:  4 significant variances which put a lot of pressure on the lot itself.  Too small for a second family living on one lot.  Opposed to second unit on the property City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 18, 2024 Page 6 of 6  Mike Wickert, 47 White St. but caretaker to 20 Avery is concerned about the west side variance because 22 Avery is close to the property line and the current fence between the two properties is not extended all the way back. He said the previous owners of 22 Avery used the area with no fence as their own when it belongs to 20 Avery. The barn on 20 Avery is 4 ft. off the property line, not 1 ft. as previously mentioned. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing will remain open. Any comments may be submitted to Aneisha in planning. 2. #20240842 1 Jefferson St. Screened in porch. Area variance to permit the construction of a screened in porch in the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. Variances sought for 1 Jefferson St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MINIMUM TOTAL SIDE 20 FT. 11.5 FT. 8.5 FT. (42.5%) Jerry Ryan, Ryan Builders represented the applicant who would like to build a 16 ft. x 12 ft. screened-in porch. It will be built to look like the house in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Jerry said when he originally designed the porch, he was not aware that there was a total 20 ft. side requirement. He said there are many properties in the neighborhood with porches and screened in porches and this porch will be built to look like it’s original to the house. Otis said he would like to have seen photos of the space between the two houses, neighborhood comps and a site plan. He said he did go out and verify those things for himself and can therefore attest to a very tight fit of the 3 ft. between the two houses. He said on the side where they are proposing to build the porch there’s a good amount of room. There’s a driveway and beyond that a parking area for the Airbnb at the corner so it appears they are not impinging on the neighbors on that side. Otis said he appreciates that they are not taking any more space on the north side. Brad asked if they would be building on the existing concrete patio. Jerry said the porch will be a little bigger at 16 ft. x 12 ft. Jonah said he lives around the corner and agrees that the porch is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:14 p.m. Hearing no public comment, the hearing was closed at 7:14 p.m. A motion was made by Otis Maxwell approving the area variance to permit the construction of a screened-in porch at 1 Jefferson St, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Vote: G. Simpson-Y, B. Gallagher - Y, S. Gaston-Y, J. Cohen-Y, B. Dailey-Y, C. LaPointe-Y & O. Maxwell-Y. 7-0, motion carried. 3. #20240837 328 Caroline St. single-car garage construction. Area variance to permit the construction of a single-car garage in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Variances sought for 328 Caroline St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAX. PRINCIPAL COVERAGE % 28% 38% 10% (35.7%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 18, 2024 Page 6 of 6  TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REAR 30 FT. 19 FT. (22 FT.) 11 FT. (36.7%) INTERIOR SIDE 12 FT. 6.9 FT. 5.1 FT. (42.5%) IMPERVIOUSNESS 50 SQ. FT. 64 SQ. FT. 14 SQ. FT. (28%) Michael Perry, MPA Architect and Ben Nathan, contractor represented the applicant. Michael said the owner would like to build a family room which will be built at grade (not shown on plan but elevation will be submitted to show it’s at grade). There was a variance granted 2 years ago (Galarneau) to build a second story addition and some additions on the first floor. Michael said his client entertains a lot of guests and they need a family room. He said they will need a variance for lot coverage to build the one-car garage that will also be used for storage and equipment. The shed in the backyard will be removed. Michael presented a copy of the tax map and said the small lot is similar to others in the neighborhood. He said all the lots are sub-standard for UR-1. Brendan said he understands it’s a small lot, his concern is imperviousness and asked if there was a way to reduce the 28%. He suggested doing something with the asphalt driveway. Michael said it’s existing and they are extending it about 10 ft. Brendan asked the applicant to do what they can to get the imperviousness closer to what it should be. Brad asked that comps be provided for maximum principal coverage in the neighborhood. He noted that the applicant had just purchased the property, and they knew what they were buying. The applicant is asking for substantial variances when they were already provided for the property in the past. He would like to see the variance requests reduced significantly. Chris agreed with Brendan that something could be done with the driveway to reduce the imperviousness. Shafer said he would like to see comps for relative building size on the neighboring lots to determine the total surrounding imperviousness. Michael said he has done permeable driveways. Shafer said that would make a more compelling project for the board. Gage said the applicant is looking for a lot more on a house that has already been approved for variances and questioned what the client really needs. Otis said the street view of the house shows a big driveway that takes up a lot of the lot. It seems to be wider than necessary for a one-car garage. The applicant should consider reducing the imperviousness of the driveway. Jonah said showing that the step in the back is at grade (family room) would be helpful. He said he’s more sympathetic to the family room than the garage, especially since the family uses the home mostly in the summertime. Gage asked Aneisha to provide the previously approved variances so the board can determine what was expected for the impermeability in that decision. Gage asked that the applicant provide the information one week before the next meeting on December 2nd. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:36 p.m. No public comments were heard, and the Public Hearing will remain open. 4. #20240836 116 York Ave. two story. Area variance to permit an addition to the existing single- family home in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Sue Davis, SD Atelier represented the applicant. Variances sought for 116 York Ave.: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 18, 2024 Page 6 of 6  TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED INTERIOR SIDE 5 FT. 0 FT. 5 FT. (100%) Sue Davis, SD Atelier represented the applicant, Nate Baker. Sue said her client would like to add some bedrooms because the house is small. They comply with all of the setbacks except for the interior side. Sue displayed a site overview of the lots in the area and the original survey from 2019. The building is directly on the property line. The addition is on the opposite side of the house and meets all of the setbacks. Sue said in the process of adding on the addition they are proposing to modify the roofline to match the pitch of the original part of the roof and reduce the soffit overhang by 1 ft. Sue said a 5 ft. side setback is required, which they don’t have, and the lot is sub-standard by about 10 ft. in width. City staff recommended that because there were no other solutions with the house being directly on the property line, they would need an easement. She said they came to the meeting to get feedback from the board in this regard. Aneisha said the building as it currently exists is encroaching on the neighboring property. The applicant has two options: 1. To bring the building entirely on their parcel and apply for a zero setback. 2. Ask for an easement or agreement with the neighbor. She added that a variance cannot be granted for someone else’s property and because the setback is under 5 ft. they will have to meet the NYS Fire Code regulations which may include removing windows and making walls fire rated. She said even if they obtain an easement from the neighbor or get a zero variance, they will need to be fire rated. Sue said they will not be able to get to zero because they have to have some sort of soffit. She was not sure of the history of the house and why it was built so close/on the property line. Aneisha said the house was not built according to the approved plans and there was no CO issued. If they have an encroachment moving forward, they will need an easement (a legal agreement between both neighbors) that will become part of the deed for whoever purchases the property in the future. Jonah said they are improving the current condition under the purview of the ZBA. Sue asked if because the addition they’re putting on does not affect the pre-existing condition, and if they didn’t change the roof would they be able to proceed. Aneisha said they would not receive a CO for the building because it’s not code compliant. They will need to produce a set of construction drawings indicating what’s there and based on the current code requirements. Aneisha said the first step is to get the building completely on the parcel, remove the overhangs, get it fire rated and then proceed. Otherwise, there’s no other way to proceed without an easement, lot line adjustment or to purchase property from the neighbor. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:56 p.m. No public comments were heard, and the Public Hearing will remain open. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 5. #20240767 47 Forest Ave. Area Variance to permit the construction of a single-family home in the Urban Residential- 1 (UR-1) District. Variances sought for 47 Forest Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAX PRINCIPAL COVERAGE 28% 29% 1% (3.6%) SETBACK - FRONT 30 FT. 24 FT. 6 FT. (20%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 18, 2024 Page 6 of 6  TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REAR NORTH 30FT. 13 FT. 17 FT. (56.7%) INTERIOR SIDE 12 FT. 9 FT. 3 FT. (25.0%) CORNER SIDE 25 FT. 18 FT. 7 FT. (28.0%) Michael Perry, MPA Architect represented the applicant. He said they were asked at the last meeting submit photos and comps for the evidence file showing that they are within neighborhood context. Michael presented the tax map with photos and comps for 8 buildings. He said most of the houses are the same; very close together on the side lots and don’t meet the requirements for UR-1. Chris said he reviewed the content that was submitted and found it very helpful in his decision. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing was still open for comments. No public comments were heard, and the Public Hearing was closed at 7:58 p.m. A motion was made by Chris LaPointe approving the variances to permit the construction of a single-family home at 47 Forest Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Shafer Gaston. Vote: G. Simpson-Y, B. Gallagher - Y, S. Gaston-Y, J. Cohen-Y, B. Dailey-Y, C. LaPointe-Y & O. Maxwell-Y. 7-0, motion carried. 6. #20240726 132 Kaydeross Park Enclosed Porch. Area variance to permit the construction of an enclosed porch/sunroom in the PUD. Variances sought for 132 Kaydeross Park: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED SETBACK-FRONT 30 FT. 20 FT. 10 FT. (33.3%) Justin Quain, contractor, represented the applicant and said the requested comps had been submitted. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing was still open for comments. No public comments were heard, and the Public Hearing was closed at 8:04 p.m. A motion was made by Jonah Cohen approving the area variance to permit the construction of an enclosed porch/sunroom at 132 Kaydeross Park Rd., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Vote: G. Simpson-Y, B. Gallagher - Y, S. Gaston-Y, J. Cohen-Y, B. Dailey-Y, C. LaPointe-Y & O. Maxwell-Y. 7-0, motion carried. Gage Simpson, Chair concluded the meeting at 8:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 18, 2024 Page 6 of 6