Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2025 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, Brendan Dailey, Vice Chair, Chris LaPointe, Jonah Cohen, Shafer Gaston & Amanda Demma ABSENT: Otis Maxwell, Chris Maslak (Alternate), Robert West (Alternate) STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, Richard Roman, Zoning Administrator, 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. #20250114 56 Duplainville Road. Area variance to permit construction of a fence using barbed wire in the Industrial-General (IND-G) District. 2. #20250104 48 White St. Area variance to permit a secondary dwelling unit in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. 3. #20250104 182 Grand Ave. Use variance to permit a two-family dwelling unit in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. 4. #20250115 38 Oak St. Area variance for construction of a detached garage in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 5. #20250048 195 Lake Ave. Area Variance. Area variance to permit a full bath on the first floor of an accessory structure in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. 6. #20250047 83 5th Ave. Area Variance. Area variance to permit the renovation of a single-family home in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. 7. #20240859 160 Fifth Ave. Area variance to permit the replacement of a rear deck in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. 8. #20240848 22 Avery St. Area variance for an addition to an existing single-family residence in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #20250114 56 Duplainville Road. Area variance to permit construction of a fence using barbed wire in the Industrial-General (IND-G) District. Mike Ingersol, LA Group, Kile Cherry, Regeneron represented the applicants who recently purchased the former Quadgraphics property at the Grande Industrial Park. They are requesting a security type fence – chain link topped with barbed wire on the property. This was previously permitted within the Grande Industrial Park but is restricted by the new UDO. In repurposing the 60- acre property certain criteria are required for security for Regeneron. The property is not currently enclosed with any fencing. Mike showed slides of other businesses within the Industrial Park and bordering properties. The main entrance to the facility is Adams Road. On the west side of the property there’s an emergency access gate that was required by the planning board several years ago. As part of an agreement with the neighbors several years ago, Quadgraphics installed a berm with a fence above it. The intention is to have that berm and fencing remain and add the security fencing on the internal side of the property. Mike showed slides of similar security fencing within the Grande Industrial Park and vicinity and the applicant’s proposed security and decorative fencing. The main portion of the fence is 6 ft. tall, and the wings are approximately 18”. Mike said they included a diagram, not a site plan, of where the fencing may go upon approval. It will be below the sight line on Adams Rd. and likely not visible to the public. Shafer said it’s not just about aesthetics but also safety issues because it’s a barbed wire fence. He asked if the fence would be readily accessible from any of the surrounding approaches. Mike said the more decorative fencing will be used at the entrance, but it still has the pointed pieces up 6 ft. up at the top. Shafer asked if it was a strict requirement that these security standards be met and are there any alternatives. Mike said it’s his understanding that in the licensing, reappropriations and standards that Regeneron needs to meet for its security purposes (insurance, operations) and to renew their licensing, this is the type of security and fencing that is used as the standard in the industry to date. They looked at other fencing and they all have a barbed wire component at the 6 ft. level. This has been accepted to date. Jonah asked if there was similar fencing at other Regeneron facilities. Mike said yes, at the Menands facility that he showed on the slide. Susan said a 239M referral to the County is required because of the proximity to the (route?). Not audible, no mic. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 6:50 p.m. Paul Safran owns 50 through 56 Adams Rd. and said he litigated the berm 30 years ago with Quadgraphics and the City and he has no issues with what Regeneron is requesting. Regeneron reached out about his concerns with the installation. They will be good neighbors. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –March 3,, 2025 Page 2 of 9 John Munter – commented on the current residents in the industrial park. He built many of the facilities in the park and there’s vacant land that will be built on in the future. He said Shafer’s comment on safety is very valid, and there’s also concerns if kids get into facilities, potentially harmful materials, dangerous trucking. He gave the example of Saratoga Eagle across the street that’s required to be fenced in with 24-hour gate access because they distribute alcoholic beverages. Cannabis companies have also looked to build in the Industrial Park, and they would have very similar requirements to Regeneron. Active shooters have also been a concern and the reason behind fences and guard shacks. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing will remain open. 2. #20250104 48 White St. Area variance to permit a secondary dwelling unit in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Zone Approved Variance Variance Req Variances Proposed Numeric Percent Min Lot Size: 8000 7500 sf 500 sf – 6.3% Min Avg Width: 80 ft. 50 ft 30’ – 37.5% Max Combined Coverage %: 40% 42% 1.6% Rear Setback (secondary dwelling): 25 ft. 10.2 ft. 14.8ft. 59.2% Bob Flansberg, Dreamscapes Unlimited represented the applicant. The lot is 50’ wide and 150’ deep, 7500 sq. ft. and they need 8000. The applicants raised their family in the primary residence, who are now grown, and they are looking to make use of the rear of the lot with access from Murphy Lane and build a single-family residence. The mom and dad will move into the new cottage type structure and age in place, and the older adult son and his family are going to move back home to the primary structure. They are looking to preserve as much of the rear yard as possible for the family to enjoy. Bob showed slides and an aerial view of neighborhood comps and photos of existing conditions on the applicant’s property where the proposed cottage would be built. There are some large trees that will need to be removed to construct the cottage. Amanda asked if driveway access was part of the variance request. Susan said it was not, just building coverage, not impermeable coverage. Chris noted that he lives within 500 ft. of the subject property. He asked if there was currently a parking space off of White St. Bob said there is a space that’s partially on the applicant’s property and partially on their neighbors. They have an agreement between them and have been using that space to park for several years. Bob said two parking spaces will be added for the cottage. Shafer said he appreciated the applicant’s desire to maximize the yard and the neighborhood context with structures close to the property line but could the 42% coverage be reduced to 40% to eliminate the variance. Bob said they have tried to reduce the coverage as much as possible so they can account for steps, etc. He might be able to reduce an overhang. Jonah disclosed that he also lives near the property. He said given the neighborhood comps and support of two neighbors who live next door to the property he doesn’t have any concerns. Brendan agreed with Shafer that if it’s possible to reduce the coverage by 2% they could eliminate a variance. He asked if all the trees would be removed. Bob said they will keep as many trees as they can. Gage agreed with other board members that they should try to reduce the coverage to 40%. He asked if the other properties right on Murphy Lane were living units. Bob said he thought yes, except for the barn. Gage asked the applicant to return with comps showing two- family dwellings on one undersized lot in the neighborhood and try to get the coverage down to 40%. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –March 3,, 2025 Page 3 of 9 Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:11 p.m. Alli Dockum, the daughter of the applicants, said she could answer some of the board’s questions. She said the barn to the left of their trees is uninhabitable and is cold storage. The trees in the center will have to be removed. There are old pine trees that her mother is concerned with that may fall with a strong windstorm. It will be nice for her 3-year-old nephew to have yard space to grown up in and play. She said the driveway next to the primary house can hold three cars for parking. Alli said on the corner of White St. and Clark St. there’s a mother-in-law suite that was added a number of years ago. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing will remain open. 3. #20250099 182 Grand Ave. Use variance to permit a two-family dwelling unit in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Jophy Lin represented the applicant, his mother, Xiao Mei Wang who recently purchased the property at 182 Grand Ave. for $330,000. They are seeking a variance to allow for a lawful two-family designation for the property. The real estate agent for the sale represented the property as a three- unit dwelling and said that it had historically been used as a multi-family dwelling. After the purchase the applicant discovered that the property was zoned for single-family use despite the fact that the property had a long-standing history for multiple family use. Jophy said the hardship his mother is facing is that it is not self-created, and the physical layout of the building already supports multi-family use and has functioned that way for many years. Without the property being a lawful two-family designation the property will be financially unsustainable. The property currently generates zero income and will require full rehabilitation at a cost of nearly $200,000. In addition to that, there are financial obligations, mortgages, property taxes, maintenance fees and insurance. With the current zoning status of a single-family dwelling, it will not generate sufficient income to support those financial commitments. Jophy said there is precedent for properties in Saratoga Springs being taxed and treated as multi-family residences despite being zoned for single-family use and he gave 95 Nelson Ave. as an example. His mother’s property has been used as multiple family and is being taxed as a two-family property. Granting this variance will bring the property into compliance and ensure that the property has financial viability. It will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as it has already been used as a multi-family residence in the past. The surrounding properties are consistent with mixed density residential area. There will be no structural changes to the property that would impact the neighborhood’s aesthetic or increase density past what previously existed. Gage said there are four criteria for a use variance that ALL must be met: 1. The applicant cannot realize a reasonable financial return on initial investment for any currently permitted use on the property. Dollars and cents proof must be submitted as evidence. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return for the following reasons: Previously listed financial hardships. 2. The financial hardship relating to this property is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood. Difficulty shared with numerous other properties in the same neighborhood or district would not satisfy this requirement. 3. The variance if granted would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Changes that will alter the character of a neighborhood or district would be at odds with the purpose of this zoning ordinance. 4. The alleged hardship has not been self-created. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –March 3,, 2025 Page 4 of 9 Gage said the financial hardship is going to be the hardest to cover. He asked if the applicant could figure out how much it would be to convert the property to a single-family home. Xiao said she did not purchase the property with that intention and used the home equity in her home to purchase this property. She has to pay interest on the property each month and has zero income coming from it. Her intention was to rehab the property for two-family dwellings and rent them out as was advertised and communicated as a possibility from the real estate agent she worked with. Gage said in reference to item #1, the applicant could technically sell the property right now and make her money back. Xiao said she tried but the property is not worth it because it’s totally damaged and in very bad condition. Gage said the board will need an appraisal showing what the property would sell for “as-is” today. Amanda said the applicant should show the value of an improved single-family home versus an improved two-family home in this neighborhood. If the improved single-family home proves to be more valuable, then the applicant has not shown financial harm. Gage said the tax map showing the property as a two-family could be something for the applicant to use for criteria #4. Gage said the applicant should return with values comparing the value of the house as a one-family versus two-family not improved, improved, rented, etc., dollars and cents as to why it’s a financial hardship. Criteria 2 and 3 can be addressed later on. Criteria 4 – there may be a determination that when the applicant bought the house it was because it was represented in more than one way as a two-family residence. Xiao said she found out just prior to the closing that the person selling the house to her had bought the house under foreclosure for $220,000. Amanda suggested that the applicant provide a copy of her title insurance which should show the zoning determination on the cover page. If it’s fully binded, there should be a letter from the building department. Estimates from contractors regarding renovation costs for a 3-family down to 2-family and 3-family to a single-family would be helpful for the board’s determination. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:41 p.m. Josh Nixon 178 Grand Ave. said this has been a “zombie” property for many years and to his knowledge it’s never been used as a multi-unit dwelling but there were multiple generations of the same family living in it. From the pictures there’s no delineation of multiple units having been in the house. He said he lives next door, and his house is a two-unit, he lives on the first floor and his tenant is on the second floor. The property across the street is also 2 units and there’s one more across the street. He said 190, 192, & 194 Grand Ave. are single brick units that were split into three distinct homes and one of them just sold for a little under $700,000. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing will remain open.. 4. #20250115 38 Oak St. Area variance for construction of a detached garage in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAX. BUILDING COVERAGE 40% 48% 8% SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 5 FT. 2.3 FT. 1.7 FT (34%) GARAGE City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –March 3,, 2025 Page 5 of 9 TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED SIDE YARD SETBACK TO MAIN 12 FT. 3.2 FT. 8.8 FT. (73%) HOUSE INTERIOR SIDE FROM ALLEY TO 5 FT. 0 FT. 5 FT. (100%) MAIN HOUSE Tonya Yesenchak, Y Engineering was before the board previously with the prior owner who wanted a second family dwelling unit above a detached garage structure. Chris and Sherri Noonan purchased the property in August of 2024 and are now being represented by Tonya. The applicants feel a need for a garage given the harsh winters in this area. The board did grant a variance to the prior owner for a 1 ½ car garage that has since expired. The current owners are seeking variances to build a detached two-car garage. The garage is consistent with the neighborhood. The property directly behind this property is the same exact size and they have a garage that’s bigger than the structure they’re looking to build with a second dwelling unit above. That property has variances for their garage. There’s also another two-car garage being constructed adjacent to that property. Tonya said her clients are seeking variances for total building coverage, including the house and side yard setbacks for the west side of the garage. A photo of an old barn structure that was removed at 38 Oak St. is included in the applicant’s package and was about the same size as the garage they are seeking to build. Tonya said she doesn’t think the variances being requested are inconsistent with the neighborhood and the lot is pre-existing, non-conforming in size. The variance being sought for the house is to construct a roof over a small side concrete stoop that runs along between the alley and the house. The previous owner removed the roof over the stoop during renovations and now it’s not protected from the elements. Tonya included Google photos that show that the roof was there less than two years ago. Tonya said since the application with the previous owner, the alley has now been deemed a side lot and before it was two fronts. Brendan said the lot is narrow in the back and the board was okay with a 1.5 car garage but not two- car. He asked if there was anything that could be done to reduce the variances. Tonya said they did already reduce the overhangs to 10” all the way around but could reduce them further. She said she included comps with coverages in the neighborhood and showing how many were pre-existing non- conforming in lot size and coverage. She said neighbors also provided letters stating that the garage was consistent with the neighborhood. Tonya noted that the alley is meant to be used for accessory dwellings and not general traffic patterns. Brendan asked if they had a plan for stormwater drainage. Tonya said they will have gravel around the drip edge and drainage in the ground that will keep the water on site. Chris said it’s actually bigger than a two-car garage because of the bathroom and stairs on the first floor. He agreed with Brendan that a 1.5 car garage would be better. Shafer and Jonah agreed with Brendan and Chris. Amanda had no comments or questions. The board members asked the applicant to return with estimates as to whether this garage is significantly larger than others in the neighborhood and any attempt to reduce the size of the garage. Chris Noonan, owner read a letter of support for the project from 5 of their immediate neighbors. They said the proposed changes “are in keeping with the character of the community, will enhance the neighborhood and value of their nearby homes. It will also increase available street parking which is quite limited due to alternate side rules, numerous existing driveways, and increased demand due to proximity to Beekman St. businesses”. Chris said they are planning to retire in this home and a less than two-car garage would not meet their needs. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 8:12 p.m. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing will remain open. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –March 3,, 2025 Page 6 of 9 CONTINUED BUSINESS: 5. #20250048 195 Lake Ave. Area Variance to permit a secondary dwelling unit in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. LOT SIZE 8000 SQ. FT. 5325 SQ. FT. 33.4% MIN. AVERAGE WIDTH 80 FT. 50 FT. 30 FT (37.5%) REAR YARD SETBACK 25 FT. 10 FT. 15 FT. (60%) RELIEF FROM ADDITIONAL 3 2 1 (33.3%) PARKING SPACE Garrett represented the applicant. He was before the board for an accessory structure, but it has been determined that a second dwelling unit is what they are asking for and will need setback variances. They were asked at the last meeting if they could provide more of a buffer in the rear setback and they are making it 10 ft. instead of 5 ft. They submitted a new survey to the city. Garrett said he submitted comps for the area as well. Shafer clarified that they’re asking for a second dwelling and how many parking spaces are required by code versus what they will have. There are two parking spaces now and one is required for the new building so they will require relief for one space. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing is still open. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing was closed at 8:20 p.m. Shafer Gaston made a motion to approve area variances for a secondary dwelling at 195 Lake Ave. Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Jonah Cohen. Discussion: 1. Paragraph 1 add “no additional land was available for purchase”. 2. Paragraph 2, second sentence start the sentence “per the applicants”. Vote: S. Gaston -Y, J. Cohen-Y, G. Simpson-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, A. Demma-Y, B. Dailey-Y. 6-0, motion carried. 6. #20250047 83 5th Ave. Area Variance. Area variance to permit the renovation of a single-family home in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Zone Req Approved Variances Proposed Variance Numeric Variance Percent Side yard west 1: 12 7 5 41.7% Side yard east 2: 12 5.58 6.42 53.5% Total Side yard: 30 12.58 17.42 58.1% City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –March 3,, 2025 Page 7 of 9 Anthony Caruso, Caruso Builders represented the applicant. He returned with comps for pre- existing, non-conforming dwellings in the neighborhood as requested by the board at the last meeting. The board was satisfied with the submission. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing was still open: Jim Cox was present on behalf of the neighbor to the right as you face the subject property. Jim said he was unable to find any information online about the variances being sought and asked if anything in the back yard was being addressed. Gage said it was not, the currently existing garage is being modified. Jim asked if a variance was ever granted for where the driveway expands over to the property line. He said this property is being used as an Airbnb and the zoning is for a single-family owner occupancy in this neighborhood. By expanding the use over the garage, they are expanding a use that’s not consistent with the character of the neighborhood. He asked if the dwelling was projected onto a survey map as discussed at the last meeting. Gage asked about the driveway up to the property line. Susan said there’s no setback for that. Anthony Caruso said the home is currently being used as an Airbnb because the home didn’t fit the family’s needs. The family is going to live at this residence and it will no longer be used as an Airbnb. Regarding the survey, they didn’t project the property onto the survey map because they are not expanding the footprint. Gage Simpson, Chair closed the Public Hearing at 8:35 p.m. Chris LaPointe made a motion to approve area variances for 83 5th Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Shafer Gaston. Discussion: 1. Need to correct the parcel number. 2. Susan said the variance is for the Porte cochere and for the second story. 3. In paragraph 1 add “the addition of the second story will be within the current pre-existing, non-conforming footprint”. 3. The last sentence “there is no adjoining land available”. 4. Add in number 3 “no variances are encroaching any further than what already exists”. Vote: S. Gaston -Y, J. Cohen-Y, G. Simpson-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, A. Demma-Y, B. Dailey-Y. 6-0, motion carried. 7. #20240859 160 Fifth Ave. Area variance to permit the replacement of a rear deck in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Zone Req Approved Variances Proposed Variance Numeric Variance Percent Rear to deck: 30 ft. 19 ft. 11 ft. 36.7% Dan Sauer – owner said he is seeking to rebuild his deteriorating deck that currently measures 7.5’ by 14’ to a larger 12’ by 16’ deck. Dan showed photos of the damaged redwood deck and said they would like to rebuild it a little larger to comfortably fit a small outdoor dining table. Google Earth comp photos show 35 homes on their side of Fifth Ave. and 26 of them have decks or back porches. Of those 26, thirteen of them have pools or decks that go right up to the property line. The board was satisfied with the comps provided. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –March 3,, 2025 Page 8 of 9 Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing is still open. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing was closed at 8:47 p.m. Chris LaPointe made a motion to approve an area variance for 160 Fifth Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Jonah Cohen. Discussion: 1. Paragraph 1, second sentence “the applicants would like to replace a deck that has fallen into disrepair”. Vote: S. Gaston -Y, J. Cohen-Y, G. Simpson-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, A. Demma-Y, B. Dailey-Y. 6-0 motion carried. 8. #20240848 22 Avery St. Area variance for an addition to an existing single-family residence in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Trevor Flynn, Flynn Design Studio said they revisited the design for the addition since the last application. They kept the garage basically in the same location but shifted it toward the east, and instead of making living space above it, they shifted that toward the front for office space. He said by detaching the structure and keeping the two-car application, they made it an accessory structure and removed the rear yard setback that was previously requested. Since there will not be living space above the garage, they removed the two dwelling unit variance requests for square footage of the lot and lot width. Three out of four variances have been removed. They only need a side yard variance for the mudroom. Trevor presented neighborhood comps. Gage thanked the applicant for removing the variance requests for the garage and for working with the board. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing is still open. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing was closed at 8:55 p.m. Chris LaPointe made a motion to approve an area variance for 22 Avery St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Discussion: 1. In #3 make requested variances singular. 2. In #1 after sentence 2, add a 3rd sentence that reads “per the applicant the location of the addition in the setback is the most feasible”, there is no adjoining land available. Vote: S. Gaston -Y, J. Cohen-Y, G. Simpson-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, A. Demma-Y, B. Dailey-Y. 6-0 motion carried. Gage Simpson, Chair concluded the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –March 3,, 2025 Page 9 of 9