Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, MARCH 24, 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, Otis Maxwell & Amanda Demma ABSENT: Chris Maslak (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. #20250163 85 Lincoln Ave. Area Variance for an addition to an existing single-family residence in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. 2. #20250162 125 S. Broadway Area Variance to permit wall sign placement above the second floor in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 3. #20250114 56 Duplainville Road Area Variance to permit construction of a fence using barbed wire in the Industrial – General (IND-G) District. 4. #20250115 38 Oak St. Area Variance for construction of a detached garage in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. 5. #20250104 48 White St. Area Variance to permit a secondary dwelling unit in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #20250163 85 Lincoln Ave. Area Variance for an addition to an existing single-family residence in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Variances sought for 85 Lincoln Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED SIDE 1 8 FT. 2.4 FT. 5.6 FT. (70%) Bob Flansburg, Dreamscapes Unlimited represented the applicant. Bob said the house is fairly small compared to other houses along Lincoln Ave. The existing floorplan consists of a one-story master bedroom wing and kitchen (no second story over these rooms). Continuing on the first floor there’s a small bathroom, living room and dining room with a short (left and right walls are 4 ft high) on the second level above where there are two small bedrooms. By removing the roof from the structure and simplifying it they created more head room and usable space on the second floor. They will be adding a new master bedroom on the second floor, keeping it a 3-bedroom home. They are proposing to enlarge the kitchen and remove walls to open things up. They added a mudroom to the first floor and brought the laundry room up from the basement. Bob showed the location of the proposed addition where it squares off the house at the top right corner of the plan. Because of how the house is angled, the corner of the addition will be 2.4 ft. from the side yard property line requiring a variance. Bob said the property next door to the right was recently rehabbed and they are 2.3 ft. from the property line in the back. The property to the left is about 3 ft. from the property line. Gage asked if the lot size was appropriate. Bob said yes, they have a good-sized lot. Bob displayed Google Maps and photos showing several properties in the area that are very close to the property lines, within 2 to 3 ft (8 and 10 Clark St., 38, 30, 39 Park Pl. and 79, 89, and 100 Lincoln St.) Bob said there’s a precedent for this in the neighborhood. Jonah said he appreciated all the detail and neighborhood context. He noted that he lives fairly close to the subject property, but it won’t impact his ability to be objective. He said the house is currently 4.1 ft. into the required setback just not as much as what’s being proposed. Bob said no matter what they did they would need a side yard variance. Otis asked how emergency services would access the rear of the house. Bob said they have a wide driveway they can use for access. Otis said he was surprised by the number of houses in the neighborhood that had tight setbacks. He asked if Bob considered putting the addition on the left side instead of the right and what were the disadvantages of doing so. Bob said they tried to use as much of the existing foundation as possible that was usable. There’s barely a crawl space under the kitchen. Shafer added with humor that even the shed in the rear is not square with the property line. Chris said his only concern is with water runoff from the roof so close to the neighbor. He asked what the pitch on the roof is and if there’s a stormwater mitigation plan in place. Bob said they will install a gutter to the ground and tie it in with the City’s storm sewer. Chris said he would like the mitigation to be a condition of approval. Bob said that’s not a problem, it’s part of their plan. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 6:52. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing will remain open. Gage Simpson, Chair said they have no homework for the applicant and will have something for them at the next meeting on April 7th. 2. #20250162 125 S. Broadway (Hilton Garden Inn) Area Variance to permit wall sign placement above the second floor in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 24,, 2025 Page 2 of 5 Variances sought for 125 S. Broadway.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAXIMUM SIGN LETTERING & LOGO 18” 20” 2” HEIGHT WALL SIGN MOUNTED ABOVE THE 2ND FLOOR OF MULTI-STORY BUILDING MAXIMUM SIGN AREA 12 SQ. FT. 14.5 SQ. FT. 2.5 SQ. FT. Adam Wakulenko, Adirondack sign Co. represented the applicant. He said the 18” sign on the front of the building has been there for a while and there’s likely a variance for it but no one can find it. The only change is that they’re re-facing it with a new graphic. The sign proposed for the second floord is being requested because the building is in a peculiar spot with heavy vegetation and the building itself leaves little space for a sign. There’s only one vantage point where you can see the sign and that’s heading south on Broadway. Adam showed a street view of the building and once you get in front of it, you can’t see it. If the sign is lower the vegetation covers it up. Otis said he understands the two signs that the applicant is requesting and asked for a better understanding of the third sign on the second floor of the building. The UDO restricts signs above the first floor, so the applicant should show comps, and they might be difficult to find. Adam said he was able to find comps right before coming to the meeting: The Racing Museum, Saratoga Honda on S. Broadway and Tree House Brewing Company. Adam said the signs all seem to be in an appropriate spot for what the signage is. Adam showed a current photo of the building and where they would like to locate the 2nd floor sign. Currently there are no leaves on the trees, so the view is not obstructed. He said there is no other place to put the sign on the building where you can see it, especially once the trees have leaves on them. Gage confirmed with Susan that the wall sign is permitted, provided it is not installed above the first floor. Susan said that was correct. Gage said the applicant will need to submit pictures of the comps for the record. Otis noted that there’s a large hotel going up at the corner of Lincoln and Broadway (Bonacio’s project) that might have a second-floor sign planned. He said the subject hotel, Hilton Garden Inn, may have been specifically designed with the berm blocking the site from the south so it could be more “garden like”. Jonah said Homewood Suites next to Tree House Brewing has a sign on the 4th floor and no vegetation obstacles. Brendan said he appreciated the presentation and asked how the sign on the side of the building would be lit. Adam said it would be 3500k halo lit. Brendan asked if the sign would be lit all night. Adam said he wasn’t sure but whatever the board/city requires the applicant would comply with. Amanda asked Adam to come up with comps in the same T-5 District. Adam will return with comps for the one sign for the 2nd floor level. Gage said the board is fine with the other two signs. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 p.m.. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing will remain open. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 3. #20250114 56 Duplainville Road Area Variance to permit construction of a fence using barbed wire in the Industrial – General (IND-G) District. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 24,, 2025 Page 3 of 5 The applicant’s representative had nothing more to present. Shafer confirmed with Susan that there was a favorable “no county impact” response from the Saratoga County Planning Board. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing was still open if there were any comments. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing was closed at 7:05 p.m.. Shafer Gaston made a motion to approve an area variance for construction of a barbed wire fence at 56 Duplainville Road, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Otis Maxwell. Discussion: First paragraph, second sentence “the applicant desires to add barbed wire and spiked posts to their fencing”. Vote: C. LaPointe-Y, J. Cohen-Y, S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, A. Demma-Y, B. Dailey-Y, G. Simpson-Y. 7-0 Motion carried. 4. #20250115 38 Oak St. Area Variance for construction of a detached garage in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Variances sought for 38 Oak St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAX. BUILDING COVERAGE 40% 46% NOW (WAS 6% (15%) 48%) ACCESSORY TO SIDE (GARAGE) 5 FT. 3.5 FT. NOW (WAS 1.5 FT. (30%) 3.3 FT.) TOTAL SIDE (MAIN HOUSE) 12 FT. 3.2 FT. 8.8 FT. (73%) MAIN HOUSE – INTERIOR SIDE 2 5 FT. 0 FT. 5.0 FT. (100%) (ALLEY) Tonya Yasenchak, Y Engineering said they have modified the footprint for the garage since the last meeting and researched the size of the building that was previously on the site. She said they were able to reduce the amount of variance needed for the coverage from 48% to 46% and the accessory to side (garage) from 3.3 ft. to 3.5 ft. Tonya showed photos of the barn and shed (now demolished) area off of the side that went over to the property line. She looked at the tax assessor’s records and found that there was an existing barn in 1925 that was 16 ft. by 19 ft. without the shed. The shed was approximately the same size as the barn, and Tonya calculated that together they equaled 661 sq. ft., which is larger than their proposed garage at 548 sq. ft. Tonya said she looked up the zoning variance for the property directly to the south, and they have a building and a garage with an apartment overhead and were granted a coverage variance for 50% in 2017. Tonya said she feels they’re consistent with what the ZBA has reviewed and approved in the past. They’re 4% lower in coverage and not asking for another dwelling unit or making the neighborhood any denser. Brendan said he appreciates the changes that were made. He said he still feels it’s a little dense, but the size of the lot has an impact on it. The neighborhood comps and comments from neighbors were helpful in his decision. Amanda said she appreciates the changes and the reduction in coverage. Chris appreciates the changes but still feels it’s too much for the lot. In the past the board was against a 2- car garage on this property and did approve a 1.5 car garage. Shafer asked how Tonya calculated the barn and shed sq. ft. Tonya said the tax assessor’s records showed the sq. ft. for the barn but not the shed. She calculated the shed size by the space it took up next to the barn. Otis said he’s not completely comfortable comparing “apples to apples” with the barn/shed to the new garage. Tonya showed a photo of a two-car garage next door with a second dwelling unit above on the same sized City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 24,, 2025 Page 4 of 5 lot as the subject property and a variance was approved by this Board for that structure. Gage said he appreciated all the work Tonya did and he thinks it fits the neighborhood. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing was still open if there were any comments. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing was closed at 7:22 p.m.. Brendan Dailey made a motion to approve an area variance for construction of a detached garage at 38 Oak St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Jonah Cohen. Discussion: #3 add “by the factors stated above in addition to the pre-existing undersized lot”. In #2 add “this proposed garage is replacing a dilapidated barn/shed of similar size and stature”. In #1 before the last sentence add “The applicants also desire to put a roof over their side stoop that was previously removed”. Vote: C. LaPointe-Y, J. Cohen-Y, S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, A. Demma-Y, B. Dailey-Y, G. Simpson-Y. 7-0 Motion carried. 5. #20250104 48 White St. Area Variance to permit a secondary dwelling unit in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Variances sought for 48 White St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. LOT SIZE 8000 SF 7500 SF 500 SF (6.3%) MIN. AVERAGE WIDTH 80 FT. 50 FT. 30 FT. (37.5%) MAX. COMBINED COVERAGE % 40% 41.33% 1.33% (3.3%) REAR SETBACK (SECONDARY 25 FT. 10.2 FT. 14.8 FT. (59.2%) DWELLING) Bob Flansburg, Dreamscapes Unlimited represented the applicant and came back with comps. Bob said they have reduced the coverage from 42% to 41.33%. They reduced the first floor as much as they could, especially since it’s handicapped accessible. He reduced the overhangs from 12” to 8”. The updated survey reflects the change from a 12” overhang down to 8”. Bob showed photo slides of comps in the area at 9 Stratton St., Cottage St., 21 Murphy Lane. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing was still open if there were any comments. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m.. Amanda Demma made a motion to approve area variances for construction of a secondary dwelling at 48 White St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Otis Maxwell. Discussion: The last sentence in #2 should be moved to #3. New last sentence in #2 “neighborhood comparables were provided that show lot width and structures of similar size and locations. Combined coverage should be a percentage 1.33% or 3.3%. Second paragraph add “secondary dwelling unit”. Vote: C. LaPointe-Y, J. Cohen-Y, S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell- Y, A. Demma-Y, B. Dailey-Y, G. Simpson-Y. 7-0 Motion carried. Gage Simpson, Chair concluded the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 24,, 2025 Page 5 of 5