Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, JULY 28, 2025 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Brendan Dailey, Vice Chair called the meeting to order at 6:32 P.M. PRESENT: Brendan Dailey, Co-Chair, Otis Maxwell, Chris LaPointe, Amanda Demma, Jonah Cohen ABSENT: Gage Simpson, Shafer Gaston. STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner. 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. #20240614 Lexington Rd. Bemis Heights Subdivision. Area variance for subdivision modification of the Independence Square subdivision in the Rural Residential (RR) District. Variances sought for Lexington Rd.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED ALL LOTS (12) FRONT YARD 30 FT. 11.5 FT. 18.5 FT. SETBACK LOT 7 AVERAGE LOT WIDTH 100 FT. 74.7 FT. 25.3 FT. LOT 6 AVERAGE LOT WIDTH 100 FT. 68.9 FT. 31.1 FT. Bruce Steves, Esq., Jones, Steves & Grassi LLP, Dominick Arico, P.E., Arico Associates, Art Curto, owner. Bruce said he submitted a project narrative to the Planning Dept. the previous Friday. His client purchased the property in January of 2018. The site is approved for 39 building lots, phase 3 of the Independence Square Subdivision and would not require any variances. The current request for variances is because of the onsite wetlands which comprise 12 acres of the 21-acre site. Bruce showed a wetland delineation map from 2017 which was completed about 6 months before his client purchased the property. The wetlands on the site are under the jurisdiction of the ACOE. There are no wetlands where the proposed roadway will enter the site. Portions of the area were wet at the time of purchase but were isolated from the remaining wetlands on the site and not considered wetlands as defined by Federal regulations; they could be disturbed or filled at that time without any permitting. An updated wetland delineation from 2022 (after purchase) shows isolated wetlands. The Federal regulations changed regarding wetland delineation which added .28 acres of wetlands to the site in the area where the development is proposed. They are proposing to fill those wetlands as part of the project. They have been working with the ACOE to develop a suitable project for this site which minimizes wetland disturbance. The project was delayed because of Covid and staff changes at the ACOE. In 2022 the project was first presented to the planning board for sketch plan review. Further staff changes at ACOE caused additional delays. They proposed a 16-lot subdivision in September of 2024 and were seeking 54 area variances. The Public Hearing was opened, and they deferred lead agency status to and sought an advisory opinion from the planning board. At the October 10, 2024, meeting, the planning board sought Lead Agency status. Based on comments from the public and planning board, the applicant modified the plan and reduced the lots from 16 to 14 thereby reducing the number of area variances being sought from 54 to 14. They are seeking 12 area variances from the front yard setback requirement of 30 ft. - lots 1 through 12, and lots 13 & 14 don’t need relief from the front yard setback. Lots 6 and 7 require variances for the minimum average lot width of 100 ft. All of the lots besides 13 and 14 (which are larger) average .34 acres in size making them consistent with the neighborhood. The average size of the 10 lots on Lexington, which are already developed and in close proximity to the project site are .33 acres. ACOE will not give formal approval until all municipal approvals have been secured. The planning board reviewed the plan on May 8th, May 22nd and July 17th of 2025 and issued a unanimous favorable advisory opinion on May 22nd to the ZBA supporting a grant of the variances. In response to a specific question about traffic from the ZBA, the planning board, after reviewing a traffic evaluation submitted by the applicants, found that any traffic impact resulting from the proposed project would be within acceptable bounds. SEQRA review is close to being completed by the planning board and the applicant understands that the ZBA can’t vote on the project until SEQRA is complete. Steve said approximately 18 acres of the project site will be permanently deed restricted. It will prohibit development, clearing or disturbance of that area in accordance with ACOE policy and planning board requirements. The wetlands that they are proposing to fill are .438 acres. The remaining 11.7 acres of wetlands on the site will be within the deed restricted area. As mitigation for the wetlands to be filled, the applicant will be purchasing “in lieu” fee credits through the ACOE at a rate of 2 to 3 times the wetlands to be disturbed. This will create new wetlands within the watershed that are 2 to 3 times as big as what will be disturbed. The front yard setback relief being sought for lots 1-12 are to maintain a reasonable amount of separation between the homes and wetlands on the rear of those lots. The setbacks will be consistent at 11.5 ft. setbacks except 13 and 14. The need for the variances are solely because of where the wetlands are located on the site. As a result of the changes in the Federal regulations for wetlands after the property was purchased, the applicant believes the hardship was not self-created. Regarding the minimum lot width variance request for lots 6 and 7, they meet the minimum lot width of 100 ft. at the front of the lots but the definition in the UDO requires that they take the average lot width from the front and rear setback and midpoint of the lot which they could do by having oddly shaped lots with larger rear setbacks that would extend further into the deed restricted area. After discussing with the planning board and planning staff they didn’t think that made sense. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 28, 2025 Page 2 of 5 Amanda asked if they had to meet DEC regulations. Steve said they do not because they fall within the grace period provision. DEC issued a SEQRA determination on this project before the first of the year and they are grandfathered. That opinion comes from DEC's attorney. Chris said he appreciates the new application and agrees with the planning staff about trying to keep regular lots. He asked what the size of the homes would be on the lots. Dominick Arico said the footprint including the garage is about 1700 sq. ft. so they will be 2200 to 2500 sq. ft. homes, similar to the existing square footage of the homes in the development. Otis said he would like to see comps of the front setbacks of the existing homes. Otis asked if they would still be required to purchase “in lieu” fee credits if the regulations change back in their favor. Steve said yes because they would still be disturbing wetlands, just not as much. Otis asked what the process is for filling the wetlands. Dominick said there’s no special grading process, it will be filled with topsoil or gravel, the road will be graded to conform to a mound that’s currently there. Chris asked if there would be sidewalks. Steve said there are none planned because there are none in the existing neighborhood. Susan said that subject will likely come up when the planning board considers the subdivision. Jonah appreciated that they have significantly reduced the number of variances being requested and that they are keeping the lot shapes more consistent. He asked how the possibility of Federal policy changes might impact their plans. Steve said they won’t be disturbing any more than .438 acres. The definitional question as to whether or not those areas in the front are isolated from the remainder of the wetlands and thus not considered jurisdictional wetlands of ACOE is the question; and that definition has gone back and forth. Jonah said the public commented about flooding, consistent standing water, etc. and asked what the applicant plans to do to keep that from getting worse. Steve said regarding potential ground water; they dug test pits 6 ft. deep and there was no water there. The final SEQRA issue they’re working through with the planning board is the drainage plan. Brendan appreciates that they are asking for fewer variances, and he likes the current plan. He agreed with Otis that the comps for the front setbacks on the existing houses in the neighborhood would be helpful. He asked the applicant to elaborate on the traffic analysis – taking a left onto Lake Ave., adding a new road off of Henning, etc. Dominick said the level of service leaving the property at Lake Ave. doesn’t change by adding the 14 lots. The peak hour adds 4 or 5 trips. They added two turn arounds for emergency services. Brendan Dailey, Co-Chair opened public comment at 7:01 p.m. Julia Andersen 8 Bemis Heights said originally #8 and #2 were supposed to be corner lots if they were to do phase 3 and there would have been street setbacks. Julia said she appreciated that the applicant is increasing the lot sizes and studying the environmental issues in the neighborhood. The original developer of Independence Square was given approval for 3 phases but was told he had to stop after the completion of phase 2. No one knows why because the records weren’t digitized and he's still on record as being approved. The planning board members have real concerns about water drainage and runoff and where the wetlands are drained into. They might pass under the Northway, affecting the water situation and contributing to the Bog Meadow issue. There’s still a lot of concern about traffic with 14 additional homes being added. One entry/exist onto Lake is still a concern for fire safety. The deed restrictions are appreciated but what about runoff and fertilizer that directly feeds into the wetlands. The buffer zone for the 3 to 4 lots backing up to the Northway is still an issue. She would like to see the ACOE application and certification once approved. There are still concerns about what type of foundations, whether they’ll have basements, slabs, partial basements? Brendan Dailey, Co-Chair said the Public Hearing will remain open. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 28, 2025 Page 3 of 5 The applicant will return with the front setback comps from the neighboring homes once the planning board has completed their SEQRA review. Continued Business: 2. #20250462151 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 MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE 40% 42% 2% Shawn Corp, Reveal Architecture Design represented the application. At the last meeting the applicant proposed a powder room on the second floor for the convenience of those people using the home-gym, and to keep the footprint of the building tight to minimize the variance they were seeking for building coverage. The board was not receptive to that plan because zoning would have required a 100% variance to allow for a powder room on the second floor. Shawn proposed a new plan with a longer entry way with a powder room and small bench on the first floor, the addition of a switchback staircase (this reduced the depth from 29’ to 28’ and helps offset some of the square footage to be added to the side) with a landing, and attic space storage under the roof rafters with a walk-in closet. The new plan added 4 ft. to the left-hand side of the plan. Shawn showed the new north elevation with the changes. They were able to reduce the width of the dormer and go back to a gable, mimicking the gable on the south elevation. There are now two windows at the bottom of the stairs on the west elevation. They originally had 14 ft. on the west side and 6.5 ft. on the east side for side yard setbacks and now have 10.1 ft. on the west side. The 6.5 on the east stays the same. They are allowed 40% for building coverage, they were at 42% and are now at 43.26%. Moving the powder room downstairs and adding the stairs increased the coverage by about 95 sq. ft. They were at 3150 sq. ft. of building coverage previously and are now at 3245 sq. ft. Shawn showed comparisons to neighboring properties; 1. Other detached garages in the neighborhood that are similar in size. 2. Other larger structures – two-story barn, five-car garage on an apartment building, four-car garage, and a three-car, two-story garage that was built last year. 3. Comparison of building coverage: commercial office building fills its lot; 2-story multi-family building next door is a large building on a small lot, a large barn that’s over in coverage and a small lot, house and 1.5 car garage on a 2700 sq. ft. lot. Shawn said a house and garage a few doors down has building coverage of 34%. The board agreed that the comps and presentation were very thorough and the change of the bathroom to the lower floor helps a lot. Brendan Dailey, Co-Chair said the Public Hearing was still open. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing was closed at 7:22 p.m. Jonah Cohen made amotion to approve an area variance for 151 Van Dam St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Amanda Demma. Discussion: Otis said the sentence in .1 beginning with “alternative designs” strike what’s there and add to the last sentence “alternative designs considered by the applicant would have necessitated additional variances”. Change grading to granting. Add a #3 “the board finds the requested variance is not substantial but is still mitigated by City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 28, 2025 Page 4 of 5 what’s above. Susan said the plans should be identified “as revised”, add in #2 “the applicant provided comparable properties in the neighborhood that would not alter the design of the street. Vote: C. LaPointe-Y, A. Demma-Y, B. Dailey-Y, J. Cohen-Y, O. Maxwell-Y. 5-0, motion carried. Otis Maxwell made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:29 p.m. The motion was seconded by Amanda Demma. All in favor, motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 28, 2025 Page 5 of 5