Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 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: The board acknowledged Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair for his 8 years of service on the Zoning Board of Appeals. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #20240954 17 Alger St. Variance Extension. Area Variance to permit the extension of a previously granted area variance within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. (20230848) 2. #20240864 81 Phila St. Two Family Construction. Area variance extension to permit the construction of a two-family home in the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. (20220487) 3. #20240953 7 Daggs Lane Addition. Area variance to permit the expansion of a front porch in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. 4. #20240948 538 Union Ave. Addition. Area variance to permit the expansion of a single-family home in the Rural Residential (RR) District. 5. #20240895 Wendy’s 24 Congress St. Signage Area Variance. Area variance to permit a wall sign in the Urban Core. 6. 20240859 160 Fifth Ave. Rear Deck Replacement. Area variance to permit the replacement of a rear deck in the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District. 7. 20240838 45 Stockholm Ave. Addition. Area variance to permit an addition to the residence in the Rural Residential (RR) District. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 8. #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. 9. #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. ________________________________________________________________________________ NEW BUSINESS: 1. #20240954 17 Alger St. Variance Extension. Area Variance to permit the extension of a previously granted area variance within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. (20230848) Variance sought for 17 Alger St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REAR 25 FT. 21 FT. 4 FT. (16.0%) INTERIOR SIDE 5 FT. 2.5 FT 2.5 FT. (50%) Lucy White said she had a hard time finding a contractor and was unable to start within the time frame for the approved variances and will be starting next summer. Lucy said nothing has changed from her previous approval and she is asking for an extension. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 6:33 p.m. Hearing no comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 6:33 p.m. A motion was made by Otis Maxwell to extend the approval for variances at 17 Alger St., Saratoga Springs, NY by 18 months to October 11, 2026. 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. Vote: 7-0, motion carried. 2. #20240953 7 Daggs Lane Addition. Area variance to permit the expansion of a front porch in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Variance sought for 7 Daggs Lane: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MINIMUM TOTAL SIDE 20 FT. 17.1 FT. 2.9 FT. (14.5%) Peter Foland and Ingrid Fisher, owners said they are seeking an area variance to build an addition onto their existing front porch. Peter said the community consists of 25 homes that began being built in 2006. It’s a Witt subdivision with 3 streets – Taylor St., Richard Ave. and Daggs Lane. Their existing front porch is only suitable for one person to sit on, and they would like to extend the existing front porch over to the corner of the house, so he and his wife have room to sit together on the porch. They would be adding another 9’ to the east. The materials would be the same as the existing porch – brown metal roof and a concrete stoop with one step. There’s a small corner of the porch that will encroach into the setback and that’s the relief they’re requesting. Peter showed comps and photos City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 2, 2024 Page 2 of 9 for requests from neighbors for relief from the minimum total side setback that were approved by the ZBA since the UDO went into effect. Brendan & Brad said it was a very thorough presentation, and the porch fits within the character of the neighborhood. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 6:47 p.m. Hearing no comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 6:47 p.m. A motion was made by Brendan Dailey to approve a variance for the expansion of a front porch at 7 Daggs Lane, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Jonah Cohen. Vote: G. Simpson- Y, B. Gallagher-Y, S. Gaston-Y, J. Cohen-Y, B. Dailey-Y, C. LaPointe-Y & O. Maxwell-Y. Vote: 7-0, motion carried. 3. #20240864 81 Phila St. Two Family Construction. Area variance extension to permit the construction of a two-family home in the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. (20220487). Expired needs new application. Bob Flansburg, Dreamscapes Unlimited represented the applicant. He said he came before the ZBA in June 2023 and the DRB gave approval and his client at the time decided not to build and sold the property. Bob showed photos of the close distance between properties in the neighborhood that do not meet UR-4 zoning. Zoning makes his client’s lot impossible to build on with the setbacks required. When he originally presented the project in 2023 the setbacks were based on UR-3 zoning. Bob showed photos of 81 Phila (vacant lot) and other homes in the area for neighborhood context. He presented a survey from 5/4/22 and the site plan for the previously approved proposal that was designed as a two-family home with living space in the basement. They are now proposing a single- family home and eliminating the staircase on the driveway side of the home, which improves the side yard setback relief from 12’ to 14’9”. The garage will stay the same size and location. The bottom corner of the plan shows zero feet for the front steps of the porch on the previous plan. That client was willing to forgo the porch, but his current client would like one. To accommodate the porch, they’ve moved the house back and increased the coverage from about 34% to 36.4% (he will provide the exact %) for the covered porch. They’ve added basement stairs with a Bilco door and an egress window to the basement in the rear of the house. The house will be 4 ft. to the property line on the right (no change from prior approval). The overhangs will be 6” on the sides. Gage summarized that the side yard setback will be improved, the maximum principal coverage is going from 34% to 36.4%. Otis said it’s his understanding that you need to apply for an extension before the previous approval expires. Bob said that’s correct and that’s why they’re submitting a new application. Shafer said he doesn’t think the new proposal should be considered as an improvement because the lot is compliant as it is. He agreed they’re improving it from what would have been if the previous plan was built. He said the comparisons of the side yards throughout the neighborhood are very compelling and the proposal is in line with the side yard. He said he’s sensitive to the overall coverage increasing because if there are surrounding properties that are also above coverage, it would not improve the condition with this addition. Jonah said it seems like a reasonable ask and he will take into consideration what the board approved previously and the improvement with this application. He asked if they had considered improving the overall coverage by reducing the garage or any portion of the home. Bob said they will take a look at that and added that the garage is as small as it can be without going to a one-car garage. Brad said he likes the redesign of the house with the front porch, it fits more with the character of the neighborhood and city. Brad asked if they could remove the stairs to the basement to reduce the overall coverage. Bob said he doesn’t think City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 2, 2024 Page 3 of 9 that would bring it down to what it was before. Brad asked if the two-car garage was really usable given the proximity to the house. Bob said he will discuss that with his clients. Gage agreed that the front porch design looks better and that maybe the garage could be reduced to a one and a half bay to help reduce the overall coverage. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 p.m. No comments were heard, and the public hearing will remain open. 4. #20240948 538 Union Ave. Addition. Area variance to permit the expansion of a single-family home in the Rural Residential (RR) District. Variances sought for 538 Union Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED SETBACK FRONT 60 FT. 8.25 FT. 51.8 FT (86.3%) INTERIOR SIDE 30 FT. 1.5 FT. 28.5 FT. (95.0%) MINIMUM TOTAL SIDE 100 FT. 73.8 FT. 26.2 FT. (26.2%) Stephanie Ferradino, Attorney represented the applicant who is proposing to expand on their single-family home. Stephanie showed an aerial view of the existing home which was well hidden with mature vegetation. She said the property is .797 acres and the house is pre-existing, non- conforming in a RR district which is typically a 2-acre minimum lot size. They are seeking relief for the front and side setbacks in order to build a small addition for two bedrooms where the garage is now and attach it to the house by means of a covered walkway. She said the lot is irregularly shaped and there is a significant grade change as you head down the driveway toward the road. She showed elevations for the proposed addition. The garage will be removed. The front setback that they’re asking for, 23.6 ft., is from the new addition (small bump out), the existing setback is 8.2’. The back portion of the garage is the closest point at 8.2 ft. and that won’t change. She said the 73.8 ft. minimum total side is also an existing condition. The interior side setback is already existing and there’s a paved area. Stephanie talked about the variance standards:  Can the benefit be achieved by any other means? Alternatives explored were design, demolition, site constraints (impervious, slopes & lot size), and attempt to purchase.  Will the variance produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood? The aesthetic of the new construction will improve the area. No impervious surface is being added so there’s no concerns about stormwater modification. They have support from both adjacent property owners. There is mature vegetation on the property. Topography. Commercial use next door which is predominately driveway.  Is the variance substantial? The variances are not substantial and two are existing conditions.  Will the variance result in an adverse effect on the neighborhood? They believe it will have a positive impact because the aesthetics of the structure will be much nicer than what presently exists.  Is the difficulty self-created? The lot is pre-existing, non-conforming with limited buildable area. The configuration and topography of the lot limit possibilities. Even if the building were moved over, they couldn’t fit the structure within the building envelope. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 2, 2024 Page 4 of 9 Gage said because they’re removing the garage and will be building back, they would have to use the 8.2 ft. setback and not 23.6 ft. There was a discussion with Aneisha that was inaudible – no mic. Brad asked why they can’t bring the building more into conformity since they’re completely rebuilding the structure. The contractor said there’s no other place where the driveway can be located. If they bring the garage toward the house, the area where they can park reduces considerably. They need the breezeway to connect the new structure with the house and that will take up space in the driveway. The new addition will have a one-car garage in the structure. Brad asked if it was possible to add on to the existing house. The contractor said the lot is very unstable in that area because of the topography. One tree may need to be removed behind the garage for excavation purposes. Shafer said the 8.2 ft. setback needs to be decided for accuracy purposes and Jonah agreed. Jonah asked how close they are to any other structures besides the property line. Stephanie said the lot next door is vacant and she believes it’s unbuildable because of the sharp slope. Aneisha said because there’s going to be a new building constructed, they will have to base their calculations on the 8.2 ft. setback. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 p.m. Tom Garrett 535 and 537 Union Ave. lives across the street from the applicant. Tom asked if the application has to go in front of the Design Review Board. Aneisha said yes, but this is the first step in the process. Tom said it appears that the property has been used as a short-term rental in the past and he would be opposed to this property being expanded and turned into a short-term rental. He said he got his notice on Wednesday and comments where basically eliminated because of the long Thanksgiving/holiday weekend. He said he didn’t think the foundation of the new building would hold up because the soil is sand all the way down to the lake. Gage Simpson, Chair closed the Public Hearing at 7:31 p.m. A motion was made by Gage Simpson to approve variances for the expansion of a single-family home at 538 Union Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Jonah Cohen. Discussion: #2 “the magnitude of the front setback variance is created”. Second sentence in #1 The applicant’s desire to rebuild the garage on the current footprint and connect it to their home via the covered breezeway. #1 “the applicant considered alternative plans, but the topography limited the buildable area”. The second to last sentence in # 1 says “the applicant’s desire to have additional bedrooms…this is the most feasible alternative noting site topography and other constraints. Vote: G. Simpson-Y, B. Gallagher-Y, S. Gaston-Y, J. Cohen-Y, B. Dailey-Y, C. LaPointe-Y & O. Maxwell-Y. Vote: 7-0, motion carried. 5. #20240895 Wendy’s 24 Congress St. Signage Area Variance. Area variance to permit a wall sign in the Urban Core. Variance sought for 24 Congress St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAXIMUM LETTERING HEIGHT 18” 36” 18” (100%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 2, 2024 Page 5 of 9 Representative for Keith Kas said they just remodeled the building. They originally had a 36” sign on the building and put up a temporary 18” sign to be in compliance so they could get the building open. They are hoping to return to their original 36” sign. It will be a new sign that will not be illuminated, very similar to the original sign. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:39 p.m. Hearing no comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m. A motion was made by Jonah Cohen to approve a variance for a 36” sign at the Wendy’s at 24 Congress St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the condition that the sign is not illuminated. The motion was seconded by Shafer Gaston. Discussion: the last sentence in number 1 is not needed. Vote: G. Simpson-Y, B. Gallagher-Y, S. Gaston-Y, J. Cohen-Y, B. Dailey-Y, C. LaPointe-Y & O. Maxwell-Y. Vote: 7-0, motion carried. 6. 20240859 160 Fifth Ave. Rear Deck Replacement. Area variance to permit the replacement of a rear deck in the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District. Dan and Dawn Sauer applicants said they are looking to replace their current back deck which is 7.5 ft. x 14 ft. with a 12’ x 16’ porch. The applicant said there was a rear setback variance in place for the current deck of 7.5 ft. when they purchased the house in 2007. Dawn said they do have a survey they just didn’t bring it tonight. Dawn said they have plantings and hedges there now and the site line would be improved with the porch. They only have neighbors on one side. Gage said the applicants should return with their survey and the board will also have to review the previous variance. Chris said they will have to review the materials and asked the applicants to provide context for neighbors that are in the rear setback similar to what the applicants are looking to do. Aerial Google images would suffice. Dawn said at a minimum they need to replace the existing deck that’s not usable. Gage said if there is an existing variance for the deck, they could tear it down and rebuild it on the same footprint. Shafer noted that considering the sketch is correct there’s currently a 7 ft. unusable deck that would go to 12 ft. which would be a 23% ask on a pre-existing condition. He said even if they don’t have the variance, the deck has been there for two decades, and it fits within the neighborhood context. He is more interested in seeing comps of other decks in the neighborhood that extend out to a similar size. 7. 20240838 45 Stockholm Ave. Addition. Area variance to permit an addition to the residence in the Rural Residential (RR) District. Variances sought for 45 Stockholm Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL 20% 23.6% 3.6% FT (18.0%) COVERAGE % SETBACK FRONT 60 FT. 17.1 FT. 42.9 FT. (71.5%) REAR TO THE EAST 100 FT. 27.5 FT. 72.5 FT. (72.5%) REAR NORTH 100 FT. 14.6 FT. 85.4 FT. (85.4%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 2, 2024 Page 6 of 9  TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REAR 100 FT. 18.3 FT. 81.7 FT. (81.7%) IMPERVIOUSNESS 25% 41% 16% (64%) Ted DeLucia, Vision Planning Consultants represented the applicants. They have a half circle type lot at the dead end of Stockholm with a lot of rear lots. Stockholm services the garage and there is a 1,050 ft. small camp style home with two bedrooms. They are seeking setback variances for the following reasons: The shape of the camp is boxy with two corners that have indentations (32 sq. ft., 4x8 ft. and 48 sq. ft. 4x12 ft.) where the two bedrooms are. The applicant would like to fill in the bump outs to square off the camp and increase the size of the two bedrooms which will require reducing the rear yard setbacks. The two additions will be built on techno posts, with no foundation and very little disturbance to the ground. They are also seeking a setback variance for the existing deck. The owner bought the house with the deck already built and was told by the Zoning Officer that it was built illegally without a permit and that a variance will be required. Ted said he spoke to DEC about the proposal and there is no impact on the environment. The site coverage will increase by less than 1%. Shafer asked how much of a burden it would be to remove the deck. Ted said the deck could be removed but the owners would need a few steps coming off the house and likely a patio which would increase the imperviousness. Currently water passes through the deck. He said it’s not obstructing anyone’s view and has been there for a while. Patrick C. said they have never received any complaints regarding the deck. The increase in size with the addition is still in keeping with the size of other homes in the area. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 8:06 p.m. Hearing no comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:06 p.m. A motion was made by Shafer Gaston to approve variances for an addition at 45 Stockholm Ave., 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. Vote: 7-0, motion carried. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 8. #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 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 after the last meeting they revisited some of the items on the project; removal of a cooking appliance which constituted a “dwelling unit” and removed their two variance requests for overall square footage and the width. They disconnected the garage from the house and created a pergola City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 2, 2024 Page 7 of 9 area to walk under, which will be considered an accessory structure and meets all of the requirements under zoning. They still require a side yard variance and presented photos showing precedence and neighborhood context on North St. and Avery St. Trevor showed iterations of how they tried to move the garage and pool around while being cognizant of the impervious area as well as house plan iterations. The board members agreed that the presentation was very helpful, and their concerns from the last meeting were addressed. Aneisha asked if there was going to be a bathroom on the second floor of the garage because that would require a variance. Trevor said they have proposed a bathroom for the second floor. Aneisha said they could have a half bath on the first floor with no relief but a full bath on the first or second floor would require a variance. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing was still open if anyone wished to comment. Hearing no comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m. There was a discussion about whether there would be overnight stays. Trevor said the whole reason for building the garage with a second floor was for a place for family to stay when they come to town. Also, the owners would be utilizing the garage while doing renovations to their home, which would require a full bathroom. Aneisha said once there will be overnight stays the building becomes a second dwelling with habitable living space. Trevor said according to the building code a space is a dwelling unit if it has sleeping, cooking and bathing facilities. If one of those is missing, it’s not considered a dwelling unit. Aneisha said the board can grant a variance for a second dwelling. It was decided that the application will be tabled until January 27, 2025. The applicant will discuss further with the Code Enforcement officer considerations for a connected single-family dwelling or a separate structure. 9. #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%) REAR 30 FT. 19 FT. (22 FT.) 11 FT. (36.7%) INTERIOR SIDE 12 FT. 6.9 FT. 5.1 FT. (42.5%) Ben Nathan, contractor, represented the applicant, Dan Zanata, who was also present. Ben said Dan will clarify his letter to the board from the first meeting and his intentions for the project. Dan said he and his wife have been residents of Saratoga for four years. They purchased the property with the intent to build a garage on the back left corner where there is currently a shed. They have recently had a child and now wish to build a family room addition on their home. One of the board’s concerns at the last meeting was the amount of impervious area on the property. Ben said they have turned the asphalt driveway into a permeable surface, reducing the overall impervious area by 19%, eliminating the need for a variance. Ben displayed a tax map and Google map showing the houses in City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 2, 2024 Page 8 of 9 the neighborhood with substandard lot sizes that have variances similar to what the applicant is requesting: 331, 332, 330 (detached garage) Caroline are neighboring larger homes on smaller lots. 39 and 42 Schuyler received variances for lot coverage. There are several larger homes on smaller lots on Fifth Ave. Ben identified five stormwater runoff catch basins within 100 ft. of the property. Brendan said he appreciates the reduction in permeability. Shafer asked if there would be a condition about the permeability of the asphalt should someone in the future purchase the property. Aneisha said there can be a condition, but it doesn’t guarantee that the next owner will abide by the condition/law. Gage asked what Ben is estimating the overall coverage is for the comps he showed. Ben said 32 to 34% and they are asking for 38%. The lot is undersized by about half the standard size in the area. Jonah said the overall coverage is still high and asked if they considered reducing the size of the addition. Ben said if they reduced it any further it wouldn’t be worthwhile. Brendan asked if Ben could show what a reduction in the size of the family room would look like because 10% is a large increase. Gage said he would like to see some concrete evidence that 38% isn’t unusual for the district. Dan said they could consider making the garage smaller but if they have to make the family room smaller, they can’t do the project. The applicant will return for the January 27th meeting. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing was still open for comments. There were no comments, and the meeting was concluded at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 2, 2024 Page 9 of 9