Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, APRIL 28, 2025 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Gage Simpson, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:34 P.M. PRESENT: Gage Simpson, Chair, Brendan Dailey, Vice Chair, Chris LaPointe, Amanda Demma, Shafer Gaston, Otis Maxwell. ABSENT: Jonah Cohen, 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. #20250265 13 Wiswall Lane. Area Variance to convert the existing garage to a two-family dwelling in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Variances sought for 13 Wiswall Lane: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MINIMUM LOT SIZE 8,000 SQ. FT. 3,996 SQ FT 4,004 SQ. FT. (50%) MINIMUM AVERAGE WIDTH (2- 80 FT. 60 FT. 20 FT. (25%) FAMILY) MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL 40% 69% 29% (0.725%) COVERAGE FRONT SETBACK 10 FT. 2.2 FT. 7.8 FT. (78%) REAR SETBACK 25 FT. 9.9 FT. 15.1 FT. (60%) INTERIOR SIDE 5 FT. 0 FT. 5 FT. (100%) TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MINIMUM TOTAL SIDE 12 FT. 9 FT. 3 FT. (25%) MINIMUM PERMEABILITY 30% 20% 10% (33%) Nick Falco represented Witt Construction. They are continuing the same variance application from 2022 that was approved in 2023 and are not looking for any additional variances at this time. There have been no changes from the previous approval. Overview of the project: • Original application 2003, approval 2004. Project sat dormant for almost 20 years. • Reapplied in 2022 with the same application/requests as 2003 but updated to meet the new zoning code. • Proposing to renovate the current storage barn into a two-family home. Showed slides of variances originally requested versus now, the survey of the existing lot, elevations of the proposed structure and original and updated first floor plan (has been changed internally) and photos for neighborhood context. • Considering an additional parking spot with permeable strips (TBD). Otis stated that the ZBA's previous approval was positive, and they believed the project would enhance the neighborhood. He noticed the reduction in permeability both then and now and asked if they considered a way to stay within the permeability requirements. Nick said he believes a lot of the permeability is being taken up by the patio in the back that will be removed. The proposed parking spot on the left side is optional (have a 2-car garage and a 1-car garage) so if they were to get the 20% variance they could use parking strips for improved permeability. Shafer said he’s much more amenable to a 25% variance and not having a parking space if it significantly improved the permeability of the lot. That would make the application more favorable. Chris asked about the parking requirement and if they needed that additional parking spot. Nick said they meet the requirement with the 2 garages, but the additional parking space would keep cars off the lane. Brendan agreed that they should try to improve their permeability. Susan said two parking spaces per unit are required, so the additional parking space on the side would require a variance. Nick said if they use permeable parking strips they can reduce the permeability ask to 17%. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 6:49 p.m. No comments were heard, and the Public Hearing will remain open. Gage asked that the applicant return with the adjusted permeability calculation with 25% variance for parking but improved permeability. 2. #20250266 16 Excelsior Spring Ave. Area Variance to provide for a proposed two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Variances sought for 16 Excelsior Spring Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 28, 2025 Page 2 of 4 TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAXIMUM CORNER SIDE 25 FT. 5.7 FT. 19.3 FT. (77.2%) MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK 30 FT. 12.6 FT. 17.4 FT. (58%) Tonya Yasenchak, Y Engineering represented Jessica Crawford, property owner who was also present. Jessica would like to subdivide the property which is at the corner of Excelsior Spring and Audrey Lane. There’s an existing house on the property and when they make a compliant new lot along Audrey Lane, the new lot line becomes a problem for the existing house by making the setbacks less than allowed by the UDO. They need variances for the existing setbacks prior to going before the planning board for subdivision review and approval. Tonya said she understands they are before the ZBA for discussion and review of the variances they’re seeking and that they will then return to the planning board for review of the subdivision. Gage said it may not have to go before the planning board for subdivision if they’re not seeking a variance for the property size. Jackie said the referral section in the NYS general city law is not specific regarding the lot, width, or area but it doesn’t hurt to ask for a referral from the planning board. Tonya said they have to go to the planning board anyway. She said they’re not seeking any variances for the new lot being created, they are needed for the existing house. They are seeking the two variances listed above. The house sits 5.7 ft. from the property line to the roof overhang of the garage, which appears far away from the pavement on Audrey Lane due to the green space in the right-of-way that’s not on the subject property. There were different requirements under the previous zoning code that would have allowed them to be mostly compliant. The changes in the UDO will require variances. The rear setback goes from the new rear property line to the roof of the house. To try to reduce the amount of the variances they would have to cut off part of the existing garage and porch. Gage said the rear setback variance is the only one required because they’re not changing anything with the existing house. Tonya said in that case in order to reduce the variance they would have to remove the screened porch. There were technical difficulties with the projector. Jackie noted that the board has received all the necessary materials from the applicant, and the information has been online for the public to review in advance of the public hearing. This information is enough for the board to review and decide on the application. Chris asked if the applicant to return with comps from the neighborhood where the houses are into the rear setback after going to the planning board. Otis asked if they considered plantings, etc. to mitigate how close the garage is to the new lot. Tonya said they would consider plantings, trees or a fence. Shafer noted that this application is being considered under the UDO and not any previous zoning ordinances. Corners or edges that move into a rear yard setback would be acceptable comps considering the non-standard orientation of the property. Gage asked if they shifted the property line to the right by one foot, removing some of the property from lot 2, would it make the new lot too small. Tonya said that would affect the minimum lot width of 100 ft. required in this area. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 p.m. Chris O’Leary said he lives at 17 Elizabeth Lane and his family built the house in 1952. The being discussed belonged to his great Aunt Freida and her husband Bob Lomasney. Freida was his grandmother’s sister, and they built their homes so they could be very close. His home is 10 ft. from the proposed lot 2. Audrey Lane was not classified as a residential street; it was a dirt path owned City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 28, 2025 Page 3 of 4 and maintained by the Lomasney family. The city informed the Lomasney’s they must close both ends of the street for two weeks annually or risk losing the property, which they did. The Saratogian came to interview Bob Lomasney in front of the blocked off street and headlined their story “Local man stands in the way of progress”. He was humiliated and he let the city take it. It remained a dirt road for about 20 years and was then paved. There is terrible flooding with water spilling onto Lot 2 from Oakland Drive. It’s 2 ft. deep at times. The entire neighborhood lacks streetlights and sidewalks. Constructing sidewalks for lot 2 would be impractical. All of the homes in the neighborhood are one- story. If the applicant proposes to build a two-story home on lot 2 it will be looking down into four backyards. He said a house at that location has the potential to lower property values and it will change the character of the neighborhood. He is opposed to the new lot. Cramming a house in there is a bad idea. The street isn’t wide enough to back out of the driveway and it’s the last patch of trees and plants in the entire neighborhood and a haven for wildlife. David Wertheim, 17 Excelsior Spring Ave. (across the street from the subject property). David said it’s a requirement in the application that a sidewalk be installed and questioned why since there are no other sidewalks in the neighborhood and nothing to connect to. At the 3-way stop where Excelsior Spring, Victoria, and Audrey intersect, drivers frequently roll through the stop sign, causing traffic concerns. He would be concerned if the new house coming in were to be an Airbnb as it would affect the character of the neighborhood. He cautioned the ZBA to deliberate carefully. Mary Naughton, 14 Oakland Dr. (on the corner of Oakland and Audrey) asked if there could be a house built on lot 2 and if the existing house would be torn down. Gage said the area is zoned residential and a house could be built there. It’s not the ZBA’s purview regarding the status of the existing house. Sean O’Leary, 17 Elizabeth Lane said Audrey Lane was not originally a city street and it’s not wide enough to support houses being built on that street. The green space is nice for wildlife. If this is allowed, what will keep others on Excelsior Spring from subdividing and building another house behind their houses. The property should remain a single lot with a single-family home on it. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing will remain open. Shafer Gaston made a motion to refer 16 Excelsior Spring Ave. to the Planning Board for an advisory opinion. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Vote: S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, G. Simpson-Y, B. Dailey-Y, A. Demma-Y, C. LaPointe-Y. 6-0, motion carried. Tonya noted for the audience that the planning board and Complete Streets (if neighborhood is identified) require anyone proposing a subdivision to make improvements such as streetlights, trees and sidewalks to increase public safety. Sean O’Leary said the city barely maintains that street as it is. It has potholes and wires have been dangling for some time. Gage Simpson, Chair concluded the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 28, 2025 Page 4 of 4