Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2025 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Gage Simpson, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:33 P.M. PRESENT: Gage Simpson, Chair, Otis Maxwell, Chris LaPointe, Amanda Demma ABSENT: Brendan Dailey, Vice Chair, Shafer Gaston, Jonah Cohen. STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, Jackie White, Legal Counsel. 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. #20250455 126 West Ave. Area variance extension for a mixed-use development in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Variances sought for 126 West Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MINIMUM FRONT YARD 12 FT. 5 FT. 7’ FT. SETBACK MINIMUM FRONT YARD 6 FT. 0 FT. 6 FT. SETBACK TO AWNING PARKING SIDE YARD SETBACK 12 FT. 5 FT. 7 FT. NORTH SIDE PARKING SIDE YARD SETBACK 12 FT. 9 FT. 3 FT. EAST SIDE Joe Hens, Ingalls & Associates represented the applicant and said they’re seeking an 18-month extension for previously granted variances for the 126 West Ave. project. It’s a mixed-use development that contains 4 town homes and office space with an apartment above. The plan has not changed; the applicant is seeking more time to complete value engineering and finalize the architectural details. Board members had no additional questions. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 6:32 p.m. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing was closed at 6:32 p.m. Gage Simpson made a motion to extend the approved variances for 126 West Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY that were originally granted on July 25, 2022, and extended once be extended by 18 months to December 23, 2026. The motion was seconded by Chris LaPointe. Discussion: Remove “otherwise further extended”. This is the second and last extension. After the tax parcel # add “for the construction of a mixed-use development”. Vote: G. Simpson-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, A. Demma-Y, O. Maxwell-Y. 4-0, motion carried. 2. #20250366 134 Crescent St. Area variance to connect the existing detached garage to the existing single- family residence to maintain a bedroom and bathroom in the garage structure in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Variances sought for 134 Crescent St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REAR SETBACK 25 FT. 23.4 FT. 1.6 FT. Jeff Anthony, Studio A Landscape, Architecture & Engineering & Andy Allison, AJA Architecture represented the applicants who are seeking to convert a single-family home and garage into a complete single- family home. Currently, the rear yard setback is 18.4’ to the property line because of a set of exterior stairs at the back of the building that will be removed as part of the renovations. Once the stairs are removed, it will increase the rear yard setback to 23.4’. The stairs will be incorporated into the interior of the building and the garage will be physically connected to the house as required by UR-2 zoning. The variance request is approximately 6.4%. Amanda clarified that as the garage exists there’s finished space above and that will become part of the single-family home. Andy – difficult to hear, not talking into the mic. Removing the covered walkway and stairs. Moving stairs from the encroachment to the inside of the structure. Otis said the board received a revised set of plans noting that the electricity and gas will be removed and a bar sink and water would be retained. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 6:41 p.m. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing will remain open. The applicant should return for the July 14, 2025, meeting. 3. #20250456 65 Phila St. Area variance for an addition to an existing single-family residence and a detached garage in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Variances sought for 65 Phila St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAXIMUM COMBINED 40% 51% 11% COVERAGE Matt Hurff, Frost Hurff Architects represented the application and said right up front that the difficulty is self- created. The changes are necessary for the owner to take on stewardship of the property. By 2023 the property had been abandoned for decades and went through a period of serious neglect prompting an attempted demolition by neglect of the previous property owners. The vision was to demolish 65 Phila and the neighboring building and construct a multi-family development in place of it. The City denied the demolition and City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 23, 2025 Page 2 of 6 the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation was able to take possession of the property and restored the exterior shell. No interior improvements have been made. When the DRB approved the project, the back wall of the property was approved as being blank for a future addition or garage. The1888 Sanborn map shows the property had additions on the back of the structure and a density of buildup in the center of the block. The map indicates that the backs of the parcels were often developed and contributed to the overall characteristics of the neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to build an addition to the back of the house and a detached garage. The density and lot coverage for this property are still the smallest on block. There’s a steady slope going from east to west and a plateau that leads to a fairly steep decent on the north edge of the property. The proposed garage will be built in the crater formed there. Photos of larger garages in the neighborhood show precedent for what is being proposed, and that the structure behind the subject property is very tall with the first floor about 8 ft. above grade. The applicant intends to grade the backyard down and scrape out where the siding of the house is sitting in the dirt. There’s a 3-story brick building on the west side of the property. Matt said the shape and scale of the addition is being dictated by the applicant’s desire to add a third bedroom to the house. The third bedroom could be put over the one-story addition and it would satisfy zoning, but because it’s a historical house it likely won’t pass DRB approval. Gage Simpson, Chair said the board will request an advisory opinion from the DRB regarding the location of the addition and mass & scale. The scale seems reasonable and the actual numbers for the comps that were provided would be very helpful. Chris agreed that an advisory opinion from the DRB is helpful. Amanda asked if the applicant could incorporate a more permeable solution for the driveway. Matt said they will be looking at stormwater in that area and will have some sort of drywell there. More surface permeability would be helpful to that cause. Otis agreed and said permeable asphalt should be considered. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:01 p.m. Andy Williams, 14 Lafayette St. Andy bought and restored his house in 1986 and eventually sold and moved away. He came back to town in 2023 and saw that the house was back on the market and purchased it again because he loves the neighborhood, the charm and the history of Saratoga Springs. He applauded what the Foundation and community have done to restore 65 Phila. His house dates back to 1836 and was one of the first homes to get a historical plaque on his home. Andy said 5 of his adjoining neighbors have signed a letter that was given to the ZBA at tonight’s meeting. The proposed plan is too much. The garage alone is almost 70% of the footprint of the original house. The actual distance between the proposed garage and his property is misrepresented in the photo shown by the applicant; it’s much closer. The height, mass and scale of the building should not be approved and go against the Historic Preservation guidelines. The 4 trees shown on the property line are on his property and will be affected by the construction of the garage. The plan is too big and threatens the neighborhood character. The board should encourage a plan that works within the guidelines of the city. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation, owners of 65 Phila St. said the Foundation has been advocating for the building since 1998. It was neglected by the previous owners, and several entities reasoned that 65 Phila should be demolished and replaced with a larger multi-family structure. The house never sold because the owners couldn’t get the price they wanted. The previous owners had to remove several rear additions to the building because of the poor condition they were in. The property was a drain on the city and its resources for more than 20 years. The Foundation was successful working through the vacant building registration which forced the owners to sell through the city court. The Foundation has invested 100’s of thousands of dollars to get the property to the point where someone can finish it for their home. There will be a Preservation covenant (beyond any city approval) on the property which allows the Foundation to have approval in perpetuity on any exterior changes to the building. The Foundation has reviewed the applicants’ plans City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 23, 2025 Page 3 of 6 and feel the height, mass and scale are acceptable. The proposed addition and garage will be lower in height than the main structure. Samantha said they prefer not to see a more suburban 2-car garage like what was shown on the slides of neighborhood comps and are happy with the design that gives more of a carriage house look like as presented by the applicant. She added that the view of the garage is very limited to the street and that the Foundation would not accept an addition over the one-story extension that has been on the house since it was built in 1851. Samantha said the Foundation has a buyer who is committed to the Preservation’s covenant, and they are hopeful that they can move the application forward. Leslie LaBon, 14 Lafayette St. said she was a design review board member for 7 years in Laguna Beach, CA. which is very similar to Saratoga Springs in that people strongly desire to live there. She understands the findings necessary to approve a variance, which in this case is for lot coverage. Leslie asked the board not to approve the variance for lot coverage. She said in looking at the ZBA’s criteria for the variance she was unable to make a finding for granting the variance. She said she found ways to develop the property without exceeding the lot coverage. Leslie listed her reasons: 1. The allowable lot coverage is undesirable to the character of the neighborhood and will be a detriment to nearby properties including her own. There are properties that by far exceed the lot coverage that were approved before the current ordinances were in place and are all multi-family buildings and are detrimental to the neighborhood and city. 2. The proposal can be achieved by reducing the building pad and square footage of the house and garage. The square footage of the proposed addition and garage would be 1682 sq. ft., and the existing building is 1975 sq. ft. The square footage would almost be doubled. The requested variance would be a substantial increase to the lot coverage, 27% from the allowable 41%. The variance will have an adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The building pad and driveway leave little greenspace room. Stormwater will be a problem for the neighborhood and the city. 3. The applicant’s alleged difficulty is self-inflicted as stated by the architect on the record. There’s no benefit to the neighborhood or community if this project is approved as proposed and the variance should be denied. Pam Funicello 116 Circular St. Pam said her husband’s family purchased 61 Phila St. (neighbor to subject property) in 1982. She has lived in the neighborhood at Phila St. and Circular St. for the past 40 years. She is a strong advocate for the development at 65 Phila St. Stormwater runoff is a problem, so anything that would keep the driveway from being a solid driveway would be helpful. Pam also asked the board to consider snow removal on that side of the road. The office building that was built promised to remove snow and they did by putting it on the library lot which was then built on so there’s no place to put snow. Joe Deleva, 69 Phila St. Joe said he’s a member of the Preservation Foundation and has recused himself from any design talks about the project. He said he supports the project and said as he stands in his backyard there are similar garage structures all along the street. He said there’s a similar issue with snow removal on the other side of the street and the snowbanks get a little high but the city comes through and takes care of it. Sue Davis, Architect said she supports the project and is confident that the Foundation and Matt Hurff will provide successful results going forward. If there’s a potential buyer that’s going to invigorate this property it should be supported. People don’t like change and there are stormwater management concerns that will be addressed. The Sanborn maps clearly show a history of buildings City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 23, 2025 Page 4 of 6 extending far into the back of properties and that should be kept in mind. Working with some of the neighbors moving forward may be a creative solution. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing will remain open. Gage Simpson made a motion that the Zoning Board of Appeals receive an advisory opinion from the Design Review Board regarding mass, scale, footprint size and location of the garage and the location of the bedroom addition on the main house at 65 Phila St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Otis Maxwell. Vote: G. Simpson-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, A. Demma-Y, O. Maxwell-Y. 4-0, motion carried. 4. #20250457 3 Second St. Area Variance for an addition to a single-family residence in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Variances sought for 3 Second St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAXIMUM COMBINED 28% 32% 4% COVERAGE SET BACK REAR 30 FT. 24 FT. 6 FT. Sue Davis, SD Atelier Architecture & Joyce Bouyea, property owner represented the application. Sue said she worked on the carriage house/attached garage addition to this home in 2001 and presented the model she had prepared. In 2001 they were approved for a rear yard setback, side yard setback, and variance for a substandard lot. The house is located in an eclectic neighborhood and the lot is average size at just over 10,000 sq. ft. Sue said 12,500 sq. ft. is required but there is no land nearby available for purchase. They are proposing a modest addition to the back of the property for a small 11’ by 11’ sunroom. Sue showed pictures and comp statistics for neighboring homes that are over the required 28% and properties under the 30-foot backyard setback. The overhangs are what trigger the maximum combined coverage. The property is currently at 30% coverage. Gage asked if the sunroom could be smaller. Sue said if you want to fit a table and chairs in there it couldn’t be much smaller. Chris asked if they could make the existing screened-in porch a 3- season room. Sue said it would be challenging to construct because it’s on footings and not set up to be a heated year-round space. Gage said the next meeting is July 14th and asked if the applicant could get the room smaller and find more applicable comps. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:39 p.m. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing will remain open. 5. #20250347 35 Ash St. Area Variance for a proposed two-family residence in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR- 3) District. Variances sought for 35 Ash St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MINIMUM LOT SIZE 8,000 SQ. FT. 6,272 SQ. FT. 1,728 SQ. FT. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 23, 2025 Page 5 of 6 TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MINIMUM AVERAGE LOT WIDTH 80 FT. 43.6 FT. 36.4 FT. Patrick Hedderman, owner and builder represented the application. When the lot was subdivided from 37 Ash St. it was granted an area variance for a single-family lot. He is proposing to build a two-family residence with an in-law apartment in the basement. They will share a stairwell on the left side of the house. There will only be one gas meter and one electric meter, the house will look like a single-family home, and the architecture is very similar to the other homes in the neighborhood. Patrick said in a one-hundred-foot radius there are 18 lots, 7 of which are two-family and his is the 6th largest lot within 100 ft. He said 39 Ash has two houses on one 50 ft. wide lot: one single family and one two-family. Otis asked what they would need to do to satisfy it as a single-family home. What are the benefits of it being a formal 2-family home. Patrick said he’s looking to have it be a long-term rental to help offset the cost of his mortgage and the possibility to have his son live with him for a few years. Chris said he has parking concerns even though Patrick doesn’t need a variance for parking. Patrick said they have 4 parking spaces. Chris asked for any comps with similar houses with similar properties that were either granted those variances or pre-existing non-conforming properties in the area. The circumference they’re looking for would be where you would let your kid bike – lose definition of a neighborhood. Patrick said he’s in UR-3 which is a two-family district. The next district is UR-2 where there are 6 family residences on 3,000 sq. ft. lots. Chris said any of that context would be helpful in deciding. Patrick will submit that information at the next meeting. Gage said the comps should be submitted for the record as well as a map overlay. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing will remain open. The meeting was adjourned at 7:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 23, 2025 Page 6 of 6