Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, JULY 14, 2025 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Gage Simpson, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:35 P.M. PRESENT: Gage Simpson, Chair, Brendan Dailey, Co-Chair, Otis Maxwell, Amanda Demma, Jonah Cohen, Shafer Gaston. ABSENT: Chris LaPointe STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, Jackie White, Legal Counsel, 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. #20250463 225 Lake Ave. Use variance for an arts studio in an existing detached accessory structure in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Jordan Becker, owner said he’s a practicing artist, ceramics and sculptures, with an art studio in his garage. He’s interested in getting more community involvement in the art studio and would like to teach a couple of summer classes for kids. He said in order to get a use variance from the city he has to show that he has an existing art studio. He is not a business and practices art in his studio in his garage. He believes kids need more hands-on activities rather than the internet/digital world. Jordan showed photos of the garage/studio in relation to the house. Gage listed the 4 criteria that need to be met for a special use permit: 1. Prove financial hardship for uses allowed. 2. Prove that the hardship is unique. 3. Won’t change the essential character of the neighborhood. 4. Not self-created. Jordan said he can’t make his art in his home. It’s a dusty, dirty artform and requires an outside space. Gage said it’s unlikely that the applicant can meet the 4 criteria. Jordan asked what the other options would be. Can he do it on his lawn? Shafer asked the applicant what triggered the idea that he needed a use variance. Jordan said some of the parents in the neighborhood asked him to provide their kids with a summer art class. He agreed and sent an email to local people he thought might be interested in signing up. One of his neighbors contacted the city and asked if this was an acceptable thing for him to do in that space. He would basically be charging for the materials to provide for the kids. Patrick Cogan said he’s allowed the workspace in his accessory structure to create his own art. The proposal for the summer classes for kids is what triggered a new classification and whether the city had provisions to allow for them. Jordan said he spoke with Richard and Mark in planning to find out how to go about obtaining the permit. It’s his understanding that article 8k. “Arts and Fitness Studio” is what was recommended that he should apply for. Jackie said it would be the Code Enforcement Officer who determines what definition would be used. It was determined that the use did not fit within the definition of the code. Brendan suggested that the applicant provide materials stating why his art can’t be performed in his house and the financial cost to him and why it has to be performed in his garage. Otis suggested that the applicant invite the children in to create some art a few times a year at no cost, then the use variance wouldn’t be necessary. Jonah said it doesn’t appear that this will meet the strict criteria for a use variance, and they should be looking for another way to provide the classes without needing one. Gage said it’s in the applicant’s best interest to reassess what he would like to do and work with the city to discuss what will work. Brendan suggested the applicant could speak with artists on Beekman St. to see if they may have a similar situation that they’ve worked out. Jordan said he thought he did all of this with the application and is confused by what’s needed now. Gage said the applicant needs to explain his reasoning on how he meets the 4 criteria in writing. Shafer said obtaining a use variance is difficult and takes some time. Jackie is inaudible, no mic. Jordan said he won’t be making any money, so he's confused about where to go from here. Gage said the way the application was written, summer classes are not allowed. Jordan asked if the board could recommend another path for him to go down. Gage said the board can’t tell him how to go forward but he can work with city staff to see what other options might be available. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 p.m. Sue Davis, neighbor, said she was really delighted to see the studio across from Auggie’s and near the east side rec in a very unique neighborhood. She said it would be nice to have a way to allow unique spaces to operate in accessory structures. It’s expensive for artists, etc. to find affordable space. She supports the application and hopefully the applicant can find a path forward. Andy Williams, 14 Lafayette St. said he is an artist too and the applicant is just trying to give back to the community. It’s a summer camp making no profit. What’s the definition of camp? There will be 5 kids and he’s just trying to give to the community. Kids should have something to do. Somebody in the city should try to find a way to allow this as a temporary thing. Patrick Cogan said he will continue to work with the applicant to find a threshold of activity at the site that won’t require a use variance. Jordan said he needs guidance in who to talk to because there seems to be a disconnect between city staff and the ZBA. Patrick said he appreciates the feedback, and the applicant should set up a meeting with the planning department to discuss the next steps. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing will remain open. The next meeting is July 28th. 2. #20250462 151 Van Dam St. Area variance for a proposed two-story detached garage in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Variances sought for 151 Van Dam St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 14, 2025 Page 2 of 12 TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED BUILDING COVERAGE 40 % 42% 2% Shawn Corp, Reveal Architecture Design represented the applicants. They are seeking two variances, one for building coverage and the second for a powder room on the second story of the garage. The building coverage is currently at 36%, 40% is required, and they are seeking 42%. The property is located on Van Dam St. just east of the traffic light with Church St. Shawn showed photos of the house from the front along Van Dam St., the houses to the left and right and a house to the right on the other side of Wells St. Pine Alley is along the back of the property and dead ends at the subject property into a large parking lot that serves three commercial buildings on Wells and Waterbury streets. Shawn showed photos of the existing garage they are looking to demolish and replace, and two properties with similar sized detached garages that are on the alley just on the other side of Wells St. What they are proposing is not unique to the neighborhood. The proposed site plan shows the existing garage, shed and pergola that will be demolished. The new garage will have a new driveway and there will be less pavement than currently exists. Two cars will be able to park in front of the garage with a third parking space for the tenant of the two-family home. The pavement between the parking area in front of the garage and the tenant’s parking space will be replaced with permeable material. They propose to build a two-car garage with storage at the back and underneath the stairs, which is needed because they are removing the existing shed. Upstairs has a home gym and separate entrance from the garage. A storage closet is located to the right at the top of the stairs, and a small powder room is planned for the left side which will require a variance. The UDO only allows for plumbing fixtures on the first level in an accessory structure, but the powder room would take up the storage space on the first level. An alternative would be to make the building footprint larger to accommodate the powder room on the ground floor, but they would prefer not to because it would impact the building coverage. Shawn showed elevations for the proposed garage. Shafer said a bathroom on the second floor will require a 100% variance and a bathroom on the first floor would increase coverage by another 5.5%. There are a few properties in the neighborhood that have detached garages, but it appears that most of the properties don’t, likely because many of the lots are smaller. Shafer said he would need to see how the 2% above coverage compares to the coverage of other properties that have garages in the neighborhood. He needs to see the square footage compared to the other units in the neighborhood. Shawn said he would make a comparison with the other two garages that are a few doors down. Otis suggested putting the powder room on the first floor and shrink the footprint to get within the allowable coverage of the total lot. Jonah said a powder room on the second floor is a much bigger ask than the coverage. He said even if the powder room on the first floor adds a few percentage points to the coverage, that would be preferable. Brendan agreed with Jonah and Otis that the powder room on the first floor would be better and wouldn’t increase the coverage by much. Shawn said they considered the first-floor powder room, but it would be tight, and it would make the stairs steeper and narrower than what the client would prefer. They are concerned that it would be difficult to bring the Pilates equipment upstairs with the turn at the top with it being narrower. Shawn asked if they got the coverage under 40% would it be easier to get the second-floor bath. Gage said the second-floor powder room is a much harder ask than the coverage overall. Gage Simpson, Chair said the applicant should return with comps for the garage (at that size for the property size). Shafer added that if a nearby property has a smaller garage, but the living space is City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 14, 2025 Page 3 of 12 larger, consider the total square footage when doing the comps. Consider why the powder room has to be on the second floor and why the storage space can’t go upstairs with the bathroom downstairs. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing will remain open. The next meeting is July 28th. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 3. #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 represented the applicant. She sent a letter and two additional comps to the board and verified that they received them. The board had asked the applicant to consider reducing the size of the 11’ by 11’ addition. Sue said the addition is only 162 sq. ft. including overhangs. The eaves can be reduced a little making it 32% instead of 32.3% lot coverage. The owner would like to stay in the home long term and enjoy the space. Sue said the comps she submitted show the same amount of lot square footage, one of which was 46.21% and the other was at 34.97%. She added that there’s a large home that’s currently being constructed on the corner of Woodlawn and Clement that is very large. This is a very mixed neighborhood and that’s what makes it unique and interesting. The character and lot size of every home is different. Sue added that what they’re proposing is not seen from the street and none of the neighbors have any concerns or issues about the proposal. Jonah thanked Sue for the comps and said they were helpful in terms of lot coverage. He clarified with Sue that the new addition will be 1.8’ further into the rear setback than the current condition of the house. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing is still open. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m. Jonah Cohen made a motion to approve variances for a sunroom addition at 3 Second St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Discussion: Sentence #3 “not substantial, further mitigated by the above”. Third sentence of paragraph 2, furthermore, the addition is not encroaching further into the rear setback than the existing structure. Vote: S. Gaston-Y, G. Simpson-Y, J. Cohen-Y, B. Dailey-Y, A. Demma-Y, O. Maxwell-Y. 6-0, motion carried. 4. #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.: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 14, 2025 Page 4 of 12 TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAXIMUM COMBINED 40% 51% 11% COVERAGE Matt Hurff, Hurff Frost Architects represented the applicants. Matt returned with two items requested by the ZBA at the last meeting: 1. Building lot coverages of the neighborhood – sent to ZBA at the end of last week. The applicant is requesting 51% lot coverage in a neighborhood that has properties with 76% (2 doors down to the left), 63% (next door to the left), 69 Phila is at 45%, 53% to the right of the subject property, the white building at the end of the street on the same side is at 74%, directly across the street is at 66%, next to that across the street is 61% and next to that across the street is 58% coverages. 2. Advisory opinion from the Design Review Board – is mass and scale appropriate? Yes. Should the coverage be reduced by placing the addition on top of the historic one-story building? No, it would not be appropriate given the historic character of the property. The board had no further questions for the applicant. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing is still open. Public Comment: Andy Williams, 14 Lafayette St. said he owns the property to the rear of the subject property, and he objects to the two-story, two-car garage (not 1.5 story as stated by the applicant). The red boxes outlined by the applicant showing the addition and garage are not an accurate representation; the proposed garage will be much closer to his property. The old map shows many additions but not one picture showed a massive garage covering nearly the entire width of the back yard. The Design Review Board said the historic trees on his property will likely be destroyed by the construction of the garage. He objects to the size, mass and scale, it’s too big. Andy said there are no 2-story, 2-car garages in the neighborhood. He said the lot coverage ask is not 11%; it’s 27%. He said just because their predecessors approved excessive lot coverages in the past doesn’t mean the ZBA needs to continue doing that. Leslie LeBon 14 Lafayette St. said she’s an architect and has experience on a Design Review Board in another city and knows how to evaluate the 5 criteria required to review and make findings for a variance. 1. Exceeding lot coverage – this will be the only 2-story garage in the neighborhood and will create an impact and be a detriment to all the single-family properties at 12, 14, 18 & 20 Lafayette St. and 69 Phila St. The other buildings on Phila St. are multifamily and detrimental to the neighborhood. Phila St. lost its charm years ago when those properties were allowed to exceed their lot coverages prior to the current zoning ordinances. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by reducing the 2-story garage to one story which will reduce the footprint by 110 sq. ft. Further reducing the square footage of the addition will bring the project into compliance. 3. The requested area variance is a substantial increase to the lot coverage; over 27%. 4. The proposed excessive lot coverage will have an adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The two-story building will block needed western and southern sun exposure along the back yards of Lafayette St. The garage is too close to the few remaining historic trees in the neighborhood on her property and the construction will destroy them. The increased building pad along with the proposed massive driveway leaves little to no green space on this lot. Rain runoff and City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 14, 2025 Page 5 of 12 snow accumulation will be a considerable problem for the neighborhood and city. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created as stated by the applicant’s architect. Reducing the applicant’s program will reduce the square footage and meet the reasonable lot coverage requirements. An office is not necessary on the second story of the garage. The proposed additions and the existing house total about 3200 sq. ft. Gage Simpson, Chair closed the Public Hearing at 7:54 p.m. Jonah Cohen made a motion to permit an addition to an existing single-family residence and detached garage at 65 Phila St. Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Discussion: Note in paragraph 1.” The applicant considered other alternatives, but these were deemed unsatisfactory by the Design Review Board on June 25, 2025. Vote: S. Gaston-N, G. Simpson-N, B. Dailey-N, C. J. Cohen-Y, A. Demma-Y, O. Maxwell-N. 4-2, motion denied. Jackie said if there’s not an affirmative vote that passes within 62 days of the closing of the Public Hearing it’s deemed a denial. Between now and 62 days the board could entertain another motion if they wish to do so. If additional information is being provided then typically the Public Hearing would be re-opened for the public to have an opportunity to comment. Matt said he has nothing to talk about with his client moving forward and is looking for some direction from the board. Gage said he was not a fan of the height of the garage and taking the stairwell out could shrink the footprint. The second story could be storage versus a full second story. Matt will discuss comments with city staff. 5. #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. John and Linda Famosi, owners represented the application. Brendan said he wasn’t at the last meeting, but he reviewed the material and watched the presentation for the application. He asked if there was any property for sale that was considered for the application. John said it was for sale but it’s not now. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing is still open. There were no comments from the audience and the Public Hearing was closed at 8:06 p.m. Brendan Dailey made a motion to permit an area variance for a detached garage to an existing single-family structure at 134 Crescent St. Saratoga Springs NY. The motion was seconded by Jonah Cohen. Discussion: #2. The variance is being triggered by the existing garage being City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 14, 2025 Page 6 of 12 converted into a principal structure. No additional construction in the setback is taking place. Vote: S. Gaston-Y, G. Simpson-Y, B. Dailey-Y, J. Cohen-Y, A. Demma-Y, O. Maxwell-Y. 6-0, motion carried. 6. #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. MINIMUM AVERAGE LOT WIDTH 80 FT. 43.6 FT. 36.4 FT. Patrick Hedderman, owner and builder represented the application. Patrick said the ZBA asked him to return with additional comps from the neighborhood which he presented as follows: the percentage of one, two and three family residences were much the same from 100 ft. from the subject property outward. While walking around the neighborhood he noticed that all the houses were on the front property line and are typically on one side or the other on the side property line. He canvased 59 homes in the area and found one 2-family structure that meets the lot size but does not meet the setbacks, and only one single-family home that meets the lot size but none of the setbacks. This finding was consistent in every direction of the area considered. His proposal meets all of the setbacks with one exception. His lot is the 6th largest lot out of the 59 lots (400 to 500 ft. out). The average 2-family lot size is 5,000 sq. ft. and his is 6,272 sq. ft. Many of the lots are completely filled with the structure with no setbacks. Patrick showed photos of 35 and 31 Ash St. and noted that within 216 ft. of the corner of his property is a 3-story apartment complex. Photos of 37 and 39 Ash St. show a one-family and two-family structure on the one lot, and they do not meet any setbacks. Sixty-five Ash St., a new structure replacing one that burned down, is about 4 ft. off the property line on the left and 9 ft. on the right and the garage in the rear doesn’t meet the setbacks. Gage asked Patrick Cogan if this property can use the average setback rule for frontage. Susan said the applicant has not asked for that relief. He’s looking for a variance to provide for a two-family dwelling on this lot. Gage said it seems like the house should be closer to the road. Patrick H. said the first floor of the house is in line with other houses on the street. He has an in-law apartment with a walk-out and had to push the house back further to get the steps down to the sidewalk. He also pointed out that the house looks like a single-family home and not a two-family home. There’s one gas meter and one electric meter with an in-law apartment in the basement; nothing would change if it were single-family. Shafer said he appreciated the color-coded charts. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing is still open. Tyler Russell, 31 Ash St. said he’s very much in favor of the project. “Yes, in my back yard”! Gage Simpson, Chair closed the Public Hearing at 8:20 p.m. Jonah Cohen made a motion to approve variances for a two-family dwelling at 35 Ash St., Saratoga Springs NY. The motion was seconded by Shafer Gaston. Vote: S. Gaston-Y, G. Simpson-Y, B. Dailey-Y, J. Cohen-Y, A. Demma-Y, O. Maxwell-Y. 6-0, motion carried. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 14, 2025 Page 7 of 12 7. #20250239 36 Hyde St. Area Variance to permit a full bathroom in the existing detached garage in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Libby Clark, Esq. represented the applicant. Owner David Crenshaw and John Witt were also present. The home was built under the former zoning code, but this application and the finishing of the garage were applied for under the UDO. The property at 36 Hyde was formerly a 2-family structure that was destroyed by fire. This application is the only one that has come before the ZBA for this property. Since the last time the applicant was before the ZBA, they have submitted a new letter of intent to the zoning officer which generated a new zoning determination. This is an appeal from Section 9.5.A.7 which indicates that the second-floor finished space may not contain bath and shower facilities on the second floor or plumbing fixtures above the first floor. The applicant is seeking an area variance because the plumbing is located on the second floor due to the pre-existing construction of the garage when they were not prohibited under Section 9.5(A 7). The initial relief was sought for a second principal dwelling. They are now seeking bathing and plumbing on the second floor. Libby outlined the questions raised at the May 2025 ZBA meeting: 1. Are there any alternatives possible? The garage can’t be moved. The living space can’t be moved to the first floor due to the need to park the vehicles in the garage. The only space which can house the bonus area for the home is within the second floor of the garage space. A connection to the house was shown on a plot plan and would require a rear setback from 25’ to 6’ and a small side yard setback because it would be considered part of the principal structure. There are only two bedrooms in the main house and the owners have business professions involving different time zones, and international business requiring communications after EST business hours. Their work requirements can be disruptive to the main household and give them limited use of their guest bedroom. The applicants would like executive amenities for this space which enable long work periods and showering without disrupting the household in the middle of the night. 2. Will it create an undesirable change in the neighborhood? The garage is pre-existing and constructed under the 2012 ordinance. There are many properties in the 3-block neighborhood which have either finished detached garage space, finished garage space or multi-unit dwellings. This property is in the RN-2 District under the City’s Comprehensive Plan which is “characterized by single family residential uses with moderate density two-family.” There will be no additional traffic, noise or related impacts. 3. Comparable parcels in the neighborhood? The applicant presented a map of 41 comparable homes with accessory structures and finished space and a listing of prior area variances for finished space in an accessory structure dating back to 2012. The most comparable property is 80 Ash St. 4. What is the history of this kind of relief? The 5-part balancing test: • Undesirable change: 2nd story garages are common in the UR-2, the garage was built at the same time as the principal structure (there are precedential cases for that at 9 Green Ridge Pl., 134 Crescent St., 65 Beekman, 75 So. Franklin, 78 Lincoln, etc. not an uncommon variance to request). • Alternative method feasible: see above • Is the variance substantial? See above • No physical or environmental condition. • Not self-created because it was approved and then the zoning regulations changed. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 14, 2025 Page 8 of 12 Connecting the structure was discussed between the applicant and board members and whether it would create more of an ask for relief – 100% variance for a bathroom on the second floor versus a certain percentage of lot coverage for the connection. Libby said the applicant doesn’t have an issue with connecting the garage to the home. Patrick C. pointed out that the city has not evaluated the potential zoning compliance or areas of relief needed for the breezeway. He said there could be building coverage and lot permeability issues. Board comments: Gage said converting the garage into a principal dwelling likely opens up more relatively large variances because it’s built as an accessory right now. Brendan said the variance lives with the property, not the property owner. He’s sympathetic to the business that the owners do, but it’s not all that relevant because the property will live on after they no longer live there. He’s not in favor of having the bathroom on the second floor of the garage. The house is large, and it doesn’t seem necessary. He said the balancing test is not equalizing for him. Jonah said the part of the balancing test that’s not working for him is whether the benefit can be achievable by other means feasible to the applicant. This is heading in the direction of other means ideal to the applicant. There are ways that the applicant could feasibly achieve this benefit even if it’s not their ideal scenario. Is there room within the primary structure where the business hours wouldn’t be disruptive? Libby said no; she’s listened for 20 years at ZBA meetings where precedent was set for sound studio’s, home offices, studios; things that are attendant to the home occupation use to that particular owner and there are many of them. Gage agreed but said they didn’t have bathing facilities. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing is still open. Eden & Richard Quay, 17 Birch, said their property right behind the structure. The garage looms over their backyard and is only 5 ft. from their fence. There are windows that look directly into their bedrooms. She contacted the city several times during construction, the first time while they were digging the foundation, and was told the building would not be occupied. The applicants have a three- level house with a golf simulator in the basement: there’s plenty of room for an office. The basement is very deep so they could add a lot of insulation for noise buffering. There is also a bathroom in the basement already. Emily Bergmann, 35 Hyde St., directly across the street thanked the board for the work they do. She has concerns about fire with heating being in the upstairs of the building. She added that there are instances in the city where people ask for forgiveness rather than permission. The city would never allow the other 3 properties in the quadrant to build carriage houses that are 5 ft. from other properties. It’s not fair to the neighborhood. If the board allows upstairs plumbing she asked that it be a half bath and there be the usual conditions of no kitchen and no overnight stays. From the plans as presented it looks like an efficiency apartment; there are people raising families in that same size space. John Witt – said he designed and built the house with two ensuites. There’s no extra loft, just a laundry room between the bedrooms. The garage was designed by the code and not illegally as Emily presented in a letter to the city. If he built the house under the new UDO he would have built it with an attached garage. He said the garage was designed for selling the house and for future space upstairs. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 14, 2025 Page 9 of 12 Joachim Bergmann, 35 Hyde St. said the Saratoga Showcase of Homes shows the home is 3662 sq. ft. with 3 bedrooms and 3.5 baths. The last line of the advertisement says, “The lower level comprises a guest suite, yoga, cycling, and golf simulator room as well as a family room”. This is a large structure with a very deep basement and the variance will live with the property and not with the owners. Libby said there’s an extensive list of homes that have finished second floor spaces. She said her challenge is the timeline and the number of variances that have come before the board since the change in the UDO; there aren’t that many. Tonight’s earlier proposal for 34 Crescent St. did not discuss the use for the second floor of the garage and she would like to know what standards her client is being held to versus the precedence that has been set throughout the city. Libby showed houses on West Circular 199, 201 that have two-story garages, 53 Beekman has a two-family dwelling in the back, 169 West Circular has a 3-car garage with an ensuite in-law apartment upstairs one block away. What are the standards of proof for this applicant as opposed to the other homes in the city that have received variances for a second story over the garage? Gage said the bathing facility is the main concern. Every application stands alone, and every resolution is written up individually and explains the mitigating factors. Jonah said they would like to see comps that are very specific to this application under the current UDO – second floor bathing facility – not just a half bath and livable space. Libby said she would discuss further with the applicant, and they will decide how to move forward. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing will remain open. 8. #20220202 31-33 Marion Ave. 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, Esq. represented the applicant and said nothing had changed since the last presentation. She noted that she looked at the determination with the Code Enforcement Officer and asked that whatever the board’s decision is on the interpretation that they still be considered for area variance relief in light of the entire record. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing is still open. John Iacoponi, Avenue A. represented himself and the neighborhood association. John asked the board if this meeting was regarding the interpretation and not the variances. Jonah said the interpretation comes first but the variances can be discussed as well. John submitted a letter to the city and reiterated that when the car wash was built 55 years ago there were three separate parcels. For all of those years the property line associated with the fueling station has been the one parcel. NYS law states continuous use is required for any grandfather clause. For 55 years there has been no continuous use on the extended property. The same is true with demolition of property; it’s required to meet the current zoning requirement. Any claim that something from the 1920’s means the 2012 zoning ordinance and Section 6.3.3 doesn’t apply doesn’t make sense. He referred to Libby’s comment about the last application she represented that she “does not want this board to set any precedent”. Regarding the merit of the variance for the fueling station requirements; it says “shall” City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 14, 2025 Page 10 of 12 in Section 6.3.3. “In any district where there’s a fueling station this zoning shall apply”. “No property line associated with a vehicle fueling station shall be located within 250 ft. of an abutting residential district.” This commercial district abuts a residential district. “Shall” is used with intent and is a much higher bar than “may” or “should”. Gage Simpson, Chair closed the Public Hearing at 9:13 p.m. Gage Simpson made a motion to approve the following findings: 1. The Zoning Ordinance Section 240-6.3.3 b3 is clear and unambiguous. The section requires no property line associated with a vehicle fueling station to be located within 250 ft. of an abutting residential district. 2. The district boundary between the Tourist Related Business District and the Urban Residential 2 District of the Zoning Ordinance runs through the property coincident along the lot line between the former tax map parcel 166.5-4-1.1 and 166.5-4-1.3. 3. The project does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Section 240-6.3.3b3 as there would not be at least 250 ft. from a property line associated with a vehicle fueling station as defined in Zoning Ordinance appendix A to a residential district. 4. While a vehicle refueling station has been located on the property, the project is not considered a lawful pre-existing non-conformance relieving it from the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section 240-6.3.3b3. The merger of the former 3 parcels into a single parcel on March 26, 2024, created new property boundary lines as of that date requiring that the proposed project meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Section 240-6.3.3b3. Resolved that the Zoning and Building Inspector’s February 13, 2025, determination is hereby upheld as the project does not comply with Zoning Ordinance Section 240-6.3.3b3 and requires an area variance from this provision in order to proceed. The motion was Second by Jonah Cohen. Vote: S. Gaston-Y, G. Simpson-Y, B. Dailey-Y, J. Cohen- Y, A. Demma-Y, O. Maxwell-Y. 6-0, motion carried. Gage Simpson, Chair said that the Public Hearing is still open for the area variance. John Iacoponi, Avenue A. asked that the Chair list the variances being requested: Front setback to the convenience store from 40 ft. to 14 ft., front setback to the fuel canopy from 40 ft. to 23 ft., front setback to the retail space from 40 ft. to 30 ft., rear setback to the fuel canopy from 25 ft. to 2 ft., rear setback to a retail space/rental space from 50 ft. to 42 ft., vehicle fueling station property line of 250 ft. from a residential district proposed to be permitted = 100% variance. John stated his objection to a one hundred percent variance for the 250 ft. rule. The Armstrong’s who live directly across the street were the people in 1970 who objected to the placement of the carwash and still live there. Ms. Armstrong’s main objection is the front setback. The requirement is clear; it’s 40 ft. – 14 ft. is excessive, substantial and self-imposed. There’s no city requirement to have it so close. Brendan verified with the applicant that the car wash is gone, there’s an established conservation easement on the forested parcel (the former residential zone), and the fuel tanks have moved further away from Loughberry Lake but are now more non-compliant with the front setback. Jackie speaking but not audible. Gage Simpson, Chair closed the Public Hearing at 9:25 p.m. Brendan Dailey made a motion to approve area variances for the demolition of an existing service station and construction of a new convenience store, gas canopy, and non-residential rental space in the Tourist Related Business (TRB) District with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 14, 2025 Page 11 of 12 encumber a portion of the property with a conservation easement restricting future development to provide a buffer between commercial uses on the property and residential uses to the north and west. The final location of the easement shall be determined by the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board during its site plan review. The conservation easement is an acceptable form to planning staff and the City Council and must be recorded in the Saratoga County Clerk’s office prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. NOTES: The County issued a negative SEQRA Declaration as did the Planning Board. Discussion: under “Substantiality” the board finds the requested variances were substantial, but notes take out “neighboring properties and”. The motion was seconded by Jonah Cohen. Vote: S. Gaston-Y, G. Simpson-Y, B. Dailey-Y, J. Cohen-Y, A. Demma-Y, O. Maxwell-Y. 6-0, motion carried. The meeting concluded at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 14, 2025 Page 12 of 12