Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, MAY 12, 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, Amanda Demma, Shafer Gaston, Jonah Cohen. ABSENT: Otis Maxwell, Chris Maslak (Alternate) STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, Mark Schachner, Legal Counsel at Miller Mannix, Patrick Cogan, Zoning and Building Inspector. 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. #20250308 110 Excelsior Ave. Quality Hardware, Inc. Area Variance for a new wall sign in the Neighborhood Commercial (T-5) District. Carl Wheeler, AJ Signs represented the applicant. They are seeking a variance for the letter height. They would like 24” and the code allows for 18”. In the logo the “Q” is 48” instead of 18”. Carl said the building is set back far off the road and the sign would look very small if lettering were only 18”. He said he can’t shrink the “Q” because it’s part of their logo. Shafer said he would like to see a rendering of what the sign lettering looks like at 18” and asked the size of the sign that’s up there now. Patrick said the current sign is 4 ft. tall by 12 ft. wide with the lettering approximately 12”. Carl showed a rendering of the logo at 84”. Shafer asked for a rendering comparing the logo from the parking lot versus the street as well as comparable businesses’ signs in the neighborhood (EBI is next door). He added that it might be more compelling if the applicant is willing to reduce some of the other signage. Patrick said they’re allowed more than one wall sign per façade as long as they meet the total square footage. Jonah said he doesn’t have an issue with the “Q” logo sign but would like to see a rendering with the “lumber” and “hardware” signs at 18”. Brendan agreed that comparisons would help their case, but he would like to see the rendering with the lettering at 18”. Amanda said she would like to see a rendering with the logo reduced overall as well. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 6:43 p.m. No comments were heard, and the Public Hearing will remain open. The applicant will return for the next meeting on June 2nd. 2. #20250329 36 Hyde St. Area Variance to convert the existing detached garage to a dwelling unit in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Variances sought for 36 Hyde St. based on determination of the Zoning Officer if they were seeking an additional or secondary dwelling unit: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REAR YARD SETBACK 25 FT. 6 FT. 19’ FT. (77%) INTERIOR YARD SETBACK 8 FT. 5.3 FT. 2.7 FT. (.3375%) NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL 1 2 100% STRUCTURES Libby Clark, Attorney, John Witt, Construction represented the applicants David & Noriko Crenshaw who were also present. Libby gave a brief history of the subdivision and purchase. The garage was constructed to meet the prior code which allowed for upstairs plumbing which was installed at the time the garage was built. The applicant is seeking to finish the second story over the garage for bonus space/office with a bathroom. The current UDO does not allow living space (bathroom) over the garage in this zone. The garage is already located on the property; it was built and is a pre-existing non-conforming structure. The proposal does not include a bedroom or cooking amenities for the second-floor area; it only includes a full bathroom. There are 10 other finished garage spaces in a one block radius. Not self-created because the garage was designed and built under the laws of the 2012 zoning ordinance which would have permitted to construct what they’re seeking. Amanda asked why a first-floor bathroom wouldn’t be sufficient. She noted that the city has concerns about people converting the space over their garages for short-term rentals such as Airbnb. Libby responded that the plumbing was installed when the garage was built under the previous zoning, a pre-existing condition. Libby added that the City passed short term rental legislation that makes the UR-2 eligible for rent on a short-term basis as long as the owner follows the STR regulations. Chris asked about the 10 comps from the neighborhood. Libby said she can provide that information. Chris asked why it would be impossible to construct a breezeway between the house and garage. John said he built a detached garage because that’s what was allowed in the zoning code. They were allowed to go 5 ft. for an accessory structure. If they were to attach a breezeway they would have to redesign the building, and it would require a variance for the setback in single-family residential. Patrick said he questioned the applicant as to whether they were seeking finished space for office use or a separate dwelling unit. They said their intention was for it to be a second dwelling unit above the garage and that was the relief they were seeking. The applicant is now seeking an amendment to the intention of the variance being sought. He said Libby is describing finished space that would not have cooking facilities or sleeping quarters and would still meet the definition of an accessory City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 12, 2025 Page 2 of 10 structure. One of the standards for an accessory structure is that it does not allow for plumbing/bathing facilities above the first floor. An office, studio, maker space, etc. was intentionally included in the UDO to allow those uses. Plumbing on the second floor would need relief if it’s just going to be used in that way. He said the applicant should submit an amendment to their application to reassure city staff and the board that all they are seeking is finished space with a bathroom, then the areas of relief would be different than what are currently identified in the denial. A new denial from the zoning officer would be required. Chris noted that overnight stays are prohibited in accessory structures. Libby asked why a neighbor could rent out a room in their house, but it wouldn’t be allowed in this case. Patrick said it has to be a lawful dwelling unit. This proposed space would not be a lawful dwelling unit and therefore not eligible for short-term rental. He noted that the main house would be eligible for short term rental under the city’s short term rental legislation. Chris asked why they couldn’t use the existing plumbing to install a bathroom on the first floor. John said there’s not enough space to have a full bathroom on the first floor. Patrick said there’s no record authorizing plumbing on the second floor. Gage asked if they only had a half bath on the first floor would a variance be required. Patrick said they could have the half bath on the first floor and office space and the other permitted uses previously discussed on the second floor. They would be required to remove the plumbing on the second floor. He said the permit and CEO only authorize storage space on the second floor. Jonah said the rationale from the applicant is that there’s already plumbing on the second floor but questioned whether that plumbing should be there in the first place. Libby said there’s no plumbing there; she used the wrong expression. Libby said it was designed because in the 2012 zoning ordinance that was never a restriction. It was never considered that plumbing would not be allowed, “that’s a new UDO anomaly of 2022”. Patrick said that’s a mischaracterization of the 2012 code. Half baths were allowed on the first floor of an accessory structure under the prior ordinance, but there would not have been authorization for plumbing on the second floor without relief from the ZBA. Libby agreed with Patrick but argued that there are hundreds of approvals in the city for plumbing on the second floor. Patrick said under the previous code rough plumbing would be allowed to the first floor. If the building inspector saw rough plumbing to the second floor, the builder would have been stopped. Gage clarified that either ordinance would have required a variance for a half bath on the second floor. Patrick said a stop work order was issued because there was framing and construction happening on the second floor that was not authorized with a building permit or zoning approval. Jonah said this problem is self-created because they’ve done work that they want to complete and can’t without a variance. Mark Schachner said the board is lapsing into deliberation mode and they’re not there yet. The applicant should make the presentation, and the board asks appropriate questions to learn what they need to know about the application. Once the public hearing is opened, held and closed the board can begin discussion. Shafer asked if pipes could be run wherever one wanted to as long as no fixture was hooked up to it? Patrick said the zoning ordinance prohibits plumbing fixtures above the first floor. Libby said she misspoke (it wasn’t clear to her), the plumbing runs from the main house to the garage, not to the second floor. Shafer confirmed with the applicant that there is neither fixture nor plumbing available for fixtures to tie into on the second level, and that the garage was constructed with the idea that a variance would be sought in the future to finish the second level. Libby agreed and said they intended to go through the habitable space process that the city had in place at the time which was completely within the zoning board’s discretion as to what was allowed on the second level. She said her research found that the most common restrictions were no overnight stays and no cooking facilities. Shafer asked why the applicant didn’t get a variance and complete the second floor when the garage was initially constructed. John said it came down to dollars and cents; it costs money to finish it. He did rough it in so they wouldn’t have to dig up the whole yard in the future. He didn’t need the space because he City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 12, 2025 Page 3 of 10 had an office downtown. John apologized that the application was submitted incorrectly. It was never meant to be a separate dwelling unit, just a place to work from home. Gage Simpson, Chair summarized that the applicant is seeking a full bath on the second floor of the garage and will need a new denial from the code enforcement officer (the current application is for a second principal structure). The applicant is to submit comparable properties with a full bath on the second story of the garage. Patrick asked for written clarification of the intended use upstairs. Gage said the applicant should demonstrate why a half bath on the first floor, which is allowed, doesn’t work. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:21 p.m. Eden & Richard Clay, 17 Birch Lane, live directly behind the applicant’s garage which is 5.3 ft. from their fence. Eden said when the plans were initially presented for the subject property, what was proposed is not what was built. There was no second garage proposed. She said when the garage was being built she noticed how close it was to her garage, and she contacted the city. The city reassured her that it would never be occupied, it was just a garage. When she saw that it had seven windows on the second story, she called the city again and said it looked like an apartment and not a storage unit. The city again said that it couldn’t have plumbing on the second floor and could only have a half bath on the first floor. The builder also assured her that the garage would never be occupied. Richard noted that there are three floors of living space including a finished basement with bedroom, about 3,600 sq. ft. – a large house with lots of room for an office in the house. It doesn’t seem necessary to have an office over the garage. Mark Finkin, 42 Hyde St. lives directly to the left of the subject property. He said when he moved there in 1986 there were approximately 7 houses on the block. Mark said he asked John Witt when the garage was being built why there were windows on the second floor and John said it was strictly storage. He said the garage is 6.5 feet from his property line. He was perplexed that plumbing was running to the garage and if there was plumbing it needed to be heated. A heated structure can’t be less than ten feet from a property line and this is 6.5 ft. Mark said it’s not the current owners that they’re up against, it’s John Witt who flagrantly violated the use variance and zoning variance. Erin Lindsay, 67 Hyde St. said she has a tear down rental next to her home and she’s very concerned about the zoning laws being upheld. Erin was going to speak to the use variance application, but Gage informed her that there will be a new denial, and a new application is being filed. She thanked the board for respecting the zoning laws in the district. Karen Matuseck, 9 Hyde St. said she has nothing against the property owners of the subject property, she feels they’ve been misled. She’s concerned about changing the way the property is being used. Karen said there’s an accessory structure that is really close to her property line and it’s larger than her house. She watched day by day as it was being constructed and her sky disappeared. Karen said when the Witt property was being subdivided into 3 lots the board required the builder to save a Heritage tree. At a certain point the roots of the tree were cut into, and Mr. Witt came before the board and said the tree was no longer safe and had to be removed. Karen said she’s deeply upset that their underground aquifer was cut into by the golf simulator that was installed and there’s a constant stream of pure water that now runs onto the Clay’s driveway. The neighbors call it “Lake Witt”. Their pure underground water is draining and going into the sewer system. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 12, 2025 Page 4 of 10 David & Noriko Crenshaw, 36 Hyde St. said they’re law-abiding people who enjoy the quiet nature of the neighborhood and this project is not going to change from that one bit. Libby summarized the list that they have: • Will submit written clarification to the zoning officer. • A new denial will be issued and in the interim they’ll look for comps and finalize that inventory for submission. • Confirm why the downstairs bathroom doesn’t work from a space and use standpoint. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing will remain open. The next meeting is June 2nd. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 3. #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%) MINIMUM TOTAL SIDE 12 FT. 9 FT. 3 FT. (25%) MINIMUM PERMEABILITY 30% 20% 10% (33%) John Witt, Witt Construction represented the application. Gage mentioned that during the previous meeting, the board inquired whether obtaining a variance for the number of parking spaces would be more relevant and could potentially eliminate the need for a permeability request. John said the permeability in the previous code was 25% and now it’s 30%. They were requesting 21% but by adding permeable pavers and grass strips to the one parking area they have reduced the ask to 22% permeability or 78%. Brendan asked how much the permeability would improve if they removed the parking spot. John said not by much because they’re using permeable pavers and grass strips for the parking space. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 12, 2025 Page 5 of 10 Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing was still open. No comments were heard, and the Public Hearing was closed at 7:43 p.m. Gage Simpson made a motion to approve area variances to convert the existing garage to a two- family dwelling at 13 Wiswall Lane, Saratoga Springs, NY with the condition that this variance is in effect for this existing structure only and if the structure is demolished whether intentionally or accidentally this approval shall no longer apply. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Discussion: Item 4 “adverse effect or impact” add “however” after the first sentence and before the second sentence. The proposed condition be reworded to read “the variance shall remain in effect” instead of “is in effect”. Instead of “no longer apply” at the end, add “be deemed to have expired and no longer in effect”. Number 1, second sentence “the board notes this application is similar”. Vote: S. Gaston-Y, J. Cohen-Y, G. Simpson-Y, B. Dailey-Y, A. Demma-Y, C. LaPointe-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 4. #20220202 31-33 Marion Ave. Area Variance. Interpretation appeal and an area variance for the demolition of the existing garage, gas station and car wash and construction of a new convenience store, gas canopy, and non-residential rental space in the Tourist Related Business (TRB) District. Libby Clark, Attorney represented the applicant and gave a history of the project: • January 2021 Proposed PUD • May 2021 Positive recommendation from DRB. • December 2021, the 1st SEQRA negative declaration passed but PUD does not pass. • February 2022, application filed for variances with ZBA based upon letter of interpretation from code enforcement regarding discrepancy between TRB and the Gateway Design District setback requirements (inconsistent as related to the setback desired) • March 2022, ZBA concern of the “100 ft. rule” raised at meeting. • May 2022, first determination issued by Code Enforcement Officer including extensive historical notes on the property including gas tanks and dispensers on the site as early as 1976. • December 2022, letter from Stewart’s to ZBA requesting a determination that Stewart’s gas pumps and fueling stations existed as far back as 1928, per submitted records with NYS. Section 6.6.3 is inapplicable as the filling stations pre-exist all other later property developments, the first City Zoning Ordinance, and the 2024 inclusion of the “250 ft’” rule. • March 2023, Stewart’s submits evidence to the ZBA of the bulk storage database for Congress Gas & Oil dating back to 1971. • May 2023, ZBA votes to reverse the Code Enforcement Officer’s determination on the “100 ft.” rule and Stewart’s appeals the decision. No other determinations are made on variance relief or fueling station interpretation. • January 2024, Saratoga County Supreme Court confirms Code Enforcement Officer determination and “100 ft.” rule deemed to apply. • November 2024, Revised plans were submitted to enable SEQRA review of two sites at Maple Dell and Marion Ave. – including removal of the car wash and conservation easement on the balance of the land north of the “100 ft.” • February 2025, Planning Board issues SEQRA negative declaration and a positive recommendation on the application. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 12, 2025 Page 6 of 10 Libby said in 2022 TRB and Gateway Design District (GDD) had a discrepancy where the zoning asked for a 40 ft. minimum setback, but the GDD (originally called the Marion Ave. Design District) wanted the building much closer. There was no way for Stewart’s to meet both, so it was decided that coming before the ZBA was the way forward. Libby showed alternatives that Stewart’s considered throughout the process: • The original proposed master plan for Marion Ave./Maple Dell (2021): 1. 7-14 residential units. 2. Car wash at the street. 3. 2 rental buildings separate from Stewart’s store. 4. Small area of buffer to the north. • First Revision to Proposed Master Plan for Marion Ave./Maple Dell (2021): 1. Moved car wash to back of site. 2. Reduced residential housing. 3. Added larger green buffer areas closer to Loughberry Lake. 4. Removed medical office space from Maple Dell and Marion. • Second Revision to Proposed Master Plan for Marion Ave./Maple Dell (2022): 1. Moved car wash further back on site. 2. Reduced rental space to 3,000 sq. ft. 3. Removed all residential uses from the plans. • Third Revision to Proposed Master Plan for Marion Ave./Maple Dell (2024): 1. Removed car wash completely to address on-going neighbor complaints. 2. Reduced rental space to 3,000 sq. ft. and attached to main store. 3. Removed all residential uses from the plans. 4. Made all additional acreage non-buildable under a conservation easement. 5. Increased front setback at request of ZBA in advisory opinion. • Current Plan: was looked at by the planning board for SEQRA and the advisory opinion. Site plan displayed – shows buffer zone, car wash removed. Libby showed a relief chart based on the determination of the Zoning Enforcement Officer: Variances sought for Marion Ave./Maple Dell: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED FRONT SETBACK 40 FT. 14 FT 26 FT. () CONVENIENCE STORE FRONT SETBACK FUEL 40 FT. 23 FT. 17 FT. (%) CANOPY FRONT SETBACK RENTAL 40 FT. 30 FT. 10 FT (25%) SPACE REAR SETBACK FUEL CANOPY 25 FT. 2 FT. 23 FT. (92%) REAR SETBACK RENTAL SPACE 50 FT. 42 FT. 8 FT. (16%) PROPERTY LINE ASSOCIATED WITH NOT PERMITTED PERMITTED PERMITTED FUELING STATION LESS THAN 250’ TO ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (SECTION 6.3.3) Libby noted that the fuel canopy is moving slightly closer to Loughberry Lake, but the underground tanks are moving further away. What you can see on the surface is not the same as what you see underground. The number of storage tanks underground will be reduced from what is currently there. This is an environmental improvement from what was there back to 1928. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 12, 2025 Page 7 of 10 Discussion about the property line associated with a fueling station less than 250’ to abutting residential district: Libby said one of the appeals filed was the denial of a permitted fueling station based on plain language. 1. They’re asking for a denial because the language doesn’t make sense. The provision reads “in any district where the vehicle fueling stations are permitted, the following shall apply”. B says, “no property line associated with the vehicle refueling station shall be located within “250’ of abutting residential district”. Libby read case law citing that construed as a whole you have to determine the legislative intent to avoid rendering any of its language superfluous. She said it’s unclear how and in what manner a property line associated with a fueling station can be separated from an abutting residential district. It’s legally impossible for a property line to be separated from an abutting district because otherwise in such circumstances it would not be contiguous or abutting; it would be separated. Libby argued that language 6.6.3 is meaningless on its face and it cannot be interpreted in a way as to discern legislative intent. This section fails for vagueness and impossibility and should not be enforced. In other words, if you’re abutting, you’re never going to be 250 ft. away. 2. It’s a pre-existing, non-conforming use. Libby provided evidence back to December of 1928 when Congress Gas & Oil registered underground storage tanks on the site. March of 1961 the first zoning ordinance is passed in the city with no 250 ft. rule. August 1971 Marion Ave. Global registers dispensers underground for vehicles on site (not wholesale gas delivery trucks), so retail gas starts in 1971. Circa 1971, the area around the project site is generally zoned residential. May 1976 the Zoning Board issued a special use permit for the car wash on the gas station site with no reference to a 250 ft. rule. In 1990 the city zoned the area around the project site UR-2 for the first time. 2004 the “250 ft.” rule for “abutting” property first appears in the ordinance. 2004 Site plan approval from the city planning board in favor of Stewart’s does not reference the 250 ft. rule and the placement of the new canopies and pumps are not found to violate the ordinance even though the residences around the site exist. 3. If the ZBA doesn’t find for 1 or 2, they would like to make a case for area variance relief. Libby went over the 5-part balancing test for an area variance: 1. Undesirable change – the site has been in existence since 1928. The planning board sees this as a desirable change for a number of reasons, one being that it will meet the intent of the former Gateway Design District and now the GCU under the UDO and that Stewart’s has made significant effort to make this project the least impactful possible (including a conservation easement on acres of land to buffer from the residential district to the north). 2. Alternative method feasible – have looked at every alternative available. The site is pre- existing, non-conforming, it’s located near a critical environmental area and the way that the site gets developed is vitally important for the environment, and it has been thought through from that perspective. It will be more compliant with stormwater regulations and safety regulations that are above what currently exists. 3. Is the variance substantial – the substantiality is mitigated from the pre-existing, non- conformance. It’s been in a non-conforming state for a very long time and has never been back 40 ft. from the property line. Stewart’s has moved the commercial uses from Maple Dell, out of a residential district. 4. Adverse effects or impact on environment this was discussed with the planning board during SEQRA review and with the city council at the first SEQRA review. It will be a better environmental site than it is today. 5. Was the difficulty self-created. Stewart’s took title to the property before the UDO and TRB designation and are contending with the changes. Redesigning the site does create a hardship, but the alternative would be to leave the property as-is, which doesn’t seem good for the community or environment. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 12, 2025 Page 8 of 10 Patrick said the board needs to address the interpretation appeal first. He said he wasn’t entirely prepared to make an argument tonight regarding the language on its face being not applicable or impossible to achieve. He considered the question of whether it was a pre-existing condition or not. If the property line associated with the vehicle fuel station had not moved in relation to the residential district then he would agree that the condition could be considered pre-existing, non-conforming. Now there’s a technicality because lots were merged that were under common ownership which made the property with the fueling station directly abutting the residential area. Previously there was a property in between that contained the car wash (and no fueling station) and the residential area abutted that property. Patrick said that he couldn't exempt the standard due to the property line change, which now makes the property abutting. He believes the pre-existing, non-conforming can be argued for granting the area variance, but he didn’t feel it qualified as being applicable prior to the application in the same way that it is now as a result of the lot line merger. Mark Schachner said there’s a lot going on here and agreed with Patrick that the interpretation appeal should be considered first and appears to be quite complex. Mark asked Libby if there was a written submission of her legal argument. Libby said an appeal has been filed. There have been several letters and evidence submitted since the beginning of 2022 on this point. It wasn’t until an official appeal was filed following the Supreme Court decision that it came in front of Patrick officially. Mark said he can evaluate what’s been submitted and provide guidance to the board but thinks it should be done in a logical order with the interpretation being considered first. Mark said because the Public Hearing was left open and has been re-noticed, the board could take public comment with a focus on the interpretation appeal. Jonah clarified with staff that the ZBA has been asked to interpret that the 250 ft. rule should not apply to this application. Failing that, the ZBA is being asked to grant an area variance to the 250 ft. rule given the circumstances. Chris asked Mark why the zoning board is making this decision. Mark said under state law someone who is aggrieved by the decision of a zoning officer has a right to appeal that determination to a zoning board of appeals. Libby asked if the board members had any questions. Gage asked that Libby come back with the setbacks for the existing conditions. Libby said the existing canopy is 4 ft. and the existing structure is 24 ft. The differential is about 10 ft. Chris asked to hear the comments from the planning board beyond the negative declaration. Susan said they issued a favorable advisory opinion. They stated that “the applicant has offered to restrict future development of the portion of the property to the north approximately 210 linear feet from the project by conservation easement. This restriction would provide a buffer from the commercial uses on the property to the residential uses to the north and west”. They recommended that “any approval include a condition that references the conservation easement and identifies when in the land use permitting process it should be finalized and filed”. Gage Simpson, Chair noted that several board members are unable to attend the upcoming workshop, and the following Monday is Memorial Day so a determination would not likely be made until June 2nd or later. Libby asked if the ZBA needed to address any issues related to the Code Enforcement Officer's January 28, 2022, determination. Patrick said there was nothing that needed to be resolved in that regard by the board. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 8:17 p.m. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 12, 2025 Page 9 of 10 John Iacaponi, Ave. A represented the neighborhood association. John said it’s clear in NYS case law that “grandfathered” goes away with non-use after a certain period of time. He said as far back as 1970 when the gas station and car wash were built, these were separate parcels. Any claim that the gas station/fueling station was the bigger area for 55 plus years is asking for great-great grandfathering. Any grandfathering of property lines is an absurd argument. The properties were divided and only combined a few years ago. The definition of fueling station under the zoning ordinance is not defined by the pumps and canopy, it’s about the building where the sale is conducted. John suggested a possible way to redevelop the property is to keep the convenience store and gas station on the grandfathered property. The objection is not to refreshen the property, it’s the massive expansion. It says in the zoning ordinance that when a property is demolished it triggers compliance. John cautioned the board to consider the precedence being set by this project that demolishes, expands over property lines, and combines properties not abiding by zoning laws. Gage Simpson, Chair concluded the meeting at 8:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 12, 2025 Page 10 of 10