Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200176 Squillacioti Residence Admin Action Decision CD a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a > > > > > > > > > > > > 0 O L L L L L L L L L L L L Lm Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 1 P Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 O -0 ... ... Iaj O W W 0 0 0 m 0 0 ,fin 0 00 0 N N 0 c ,,,CT Ol ,-1 I. r-I m N N m m ..-1 m Y N U i •N -0 O of a N _ N .1 4-r Ll1 Q NN N N N on 00 N •en0 N - N O N .--1 Ol O O . 0- 9- U 3 a, E• 5 O mO O mO mO mO Nl Nn Nn N O LNn Ln N C a a1 2 y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ d w W W W W W W W W W W W w w cc -D a) >r OC (6 L 6 6 6 L L fa L 'L H CC 8 cc cc cc 8 0 c, 0 0 0 N oc cc cc oc ate, ate, 0 ate' a) ate' NJ l0 > (0 Ol m -i > > < > H > _ 73 if N J O c-1 c-I Ol l0 0 Ol l0 Ln Ln Q c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I l0 N m Ol m al N Y Y Y E o o o _ 0 O Ei -0 -0 -0CD CD CD o t a) t (6 2 -5 E 1 1 1 E 0 O L Lw L = O d d d 0 O_ L O L O to cu c 5 O c c c O 1 Q r0 0_ m t c VI m L 1 1 1 () 4-. y (f6 L O 1 (0 O Q O O r6 r0 r0 fa N > •.� W Y —1 - - - m c NJ m t E v m o0 00 00 > o� "' '5 _ N Oa C 00 l.0 l.0 I Cr N al N }r CO 0 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS JUNE 14, 2000 CITY COUNCIL ROOM 7:30 P.M. MINUTES PRESENT: Richard Dunn, Vice Chair David Harper, Chair Cindy Hollowood, Secretary Ronald Kim Chris Mathiesen ABSENT: Mary Flanagan Harry MacAvoy ALSO PRESENT: Tony Izzo, ZBA Attorney Geoff Bornemann, City Planner NEXT MEETING Board members agreed to meet again on July 19. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 10, 2000 Richard Dunn moved and Ronald Kim seconded to approve the May 10, 2000, meeting minutes as written. Ayes all. #1809 GLASER, BARBARA (110 Spring Street) This is an application for an area variance to remove a window in the rear wall of the building and install French doors and a small balcony at the second level of the existing building in an Urban Residential-4 district. Appearing before the Board was Susan Davis, architect. Susan Davis said the applicant simply wants to add a small balcony to the second floor of this building. David Harper said there was a variance granted in 1974 to use the premises for an education center. He said in 1984 a special use permit was applied for, however, that application was withdrawn. He further noted that there had been some discussion at a 1989 Design Review Commission meeting concerning the use of the second floor. He then asked how the second floor is being used. Sue Davis said to the best of her knowledge the second floor is used for storage purposes only. She said there is a small desk which is used only on an occasional basis. David Harper noted that in the Building Inspector's denial there is no mention of a denial for a use variance. He further noted that the previously granted variance does not limit the use of the second floor. Sue Davis said there is no residential use of the second floor. David Harper asked if there would be a fire escape issue if there was second floor residential use. Sue Davis said it was her understanding of the building code that if the second floor is less than 2,500 square feet another means of egress is not necessary. Cindy Hollowood asked if there was a handicapped accessibility issue. Sue Davis said that has never been an issue with the building inspector. Sue Davis said the applicant wishes to construct a small balcony on the second floor. She said the placement of this balcony will encroach into the side yard setback from the required 20 feet to 13 feet. 2_ I he applicant has demonstrated this action is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship in that the encroachment upon the side yard and rear yard setbacks resulting from the balcony are only minimal additional encroachments upon the side yard, rear yard and percentage of lot coverage. 3. The granting of this area variance will not have an adverse impact on the essential character of the neighborhood because the renovation will serve to enhance the appearance of the rear (south) wall of the building. There has been no stated opposition to this renovation. Ayes all. #1810 CALKINS, ROGER & MARY (156 Kaydeross Park Road) Chris Mathiesen moved and Cindy Hollowood seconded that the area variance for the premises for relief for a side yard setback from ten feet to one foot as shown on the submitted plans be granted for the following reasons: 1 The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty which would result in significant economic injury if the variance was not granted because the addition of the porch on the south side of the townhouse rather than the rear will allow a view of the lake thus enhancing the value of the addition. 2. The applicant has demonstrated this action is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship in that the proposed porch is the smallest practical size for such an addition. 3. The granting of this area variance will not have an adverse impact on the essential character of the neighborhood because the side yard in question abuts a "forever wild" lot owned by the Homeowners Association. The Homeowners Association has approved the design and dimension. Ayes all. #1811 BELMONTE BUILDERS (3 Thames Way) Ronald Kim moved and Chris Mathiesen seconded that the area variance for front yard setback relief from 25 feet to 23 feet as shown on the submitted plans be granted for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty which would result in significant economic injury if the area variance was not granted because the only alternative would be to remove the porch or shrink its dimensions, both of which would be costly. 2. The applicant has demonstrated the area variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship because the porch encroaches on the setback requirements by approximately one foot. 3. Granting of this variance will nothave an adverse impact on the essential character of the neighborhood because the existing porch construction is in keeping with the neighborhood homes and does not significantly infringe on any neighboring home. Ayes all. -4 #1812 BELMONTE BUILDERS (47 Vista Drive) Ronald Kim moved and Chris Mathiesen seconded that the area variance for relief from the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 27 feet as shown on the submitted plans be granted for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty which would result in significant economic injury if the variance was not granted because modifying the building to conform to the setback requirements would be too costly. 2. The applicant has demonstrated this action is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship in that the three-foot variance is a small alteration to the total setback requirements. 3. The granting of this area variance will not have an adverse impact on the essential character of the neighborhood because the neighborhood is currently undeveloped but the plans are to develop the neighborhood with homes of a similar style and shape. Ayes all. #1815 KENYON, ROBERT (115 Meadowbrook Road) Chris Mathiesen moved and Cindy Hollowood seconded that the area variance for relief from the side yard setback from 12 feet to 9 feet as shown on the submitted plans be granted for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty which would result in significant economic injury if the variance was not granted because there would have to be extensive modifications to the existing structure in order to conform to the 12 feet side yard setback and at the same time add an additional garage bay to the south side yard. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 CITY COUNCIL ROOM 7:00 P.M. MINUTES PRESENT: Amy Durland Mary Flanagan,Vice Chair Cindy Hollowood, Secretary Ron Kim(arrived 7:07 p.m.) Harry MacAvoy, Chair Steve Markovits Chris Mathiesen ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Tony Izzo,ZBA Attorney Brad Birge, Staff NEXT MEETING It was aoreed the next meeting would be Wednesday, September 25,2002. The Board also scheduled their October meeting,which will be on the 23rd of October 2002. APPROVAL OF JULY 24,2002 MEETING MINUTES Amy Durland moved to approve the minutes as submitted,seconded by Christian Mathieson. Chair Harry MacAvoy called for any amendment or changes. Mary Flanagan moved to amend the motion for the Patrick Design area variance. Mary Flanagan asked to amend item 3 of paragraph 4 to read, "at no time shall any dogs be maintained or leashed within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the applicant's easterly property line with the exception of the two afore-mentioned dogs". Harry MacAvoy clarified the intent of the amendment and stated that the two house pets are not meant to be encumbered by the 250 foot restriction. There were no further amendments. Amy Durland moved to approve the motion and minutes as amended, seconded by Christian Mathiesen. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with 6 members in favor and 1 member, Stephen Markovits,abstaining. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 04, 2002 Christian Mathiesen said that because the property in consideration is a corner lot,he felt it is an issue the Board should take cautiously_ He added that public safety is also an issue on a corner lot in regards to setback requirements and the issue needs to be looked at carefully. He said he felt the application should be considered as a variance and not as an interpretation. Christian Mathiesen said he conducted a site visit with an individi Sal from Public Safety. He said they were both concerned with the house being on a corner and that the line of view is not adequate. Christian Mathiesen said they both would suggest moving the house back away from State Street and consider this an area variance and not an interpretation. Harry MacAvoy asked for a motion on the interpretation. Amy Durland offered to make the motion and moved that section 240-12.3 does not apply to the specific circumstances of this application and she moves to deny the interpretation. Christian Mathiesen seconded the motion. Amy Durland stated her rationale to deny the interpretation was because she would prefer to discuss more fully this specific application as an area variance. harry MacAvoy requested a roll call and the motion failed (4-3) to deny the interpretation. Ron Kim moved that section 240-12.3 city code be interpreted,on the specific merits of this case only,to allow the applicant's method for establishing a setback distance, seconded by Mary Flanagan. Harry MacAvoy reminded the Board that by agreeing the Board is allowing the structure to be 2.5 feet from both Alger and State Street. He said that this also effects the setback on State Street and the decision should be for an area variance and not an interpretation. Harry MacAvoy added that although the adjacent property porch extends into the encroachment,the requested setback is not just the porch but the structure itself. He said the Board is removing the ability to discuss the placement back off State Street. Christian Mathiesen asked members to keep in mind the issue raised in regards to public safety. Amy Durland said she was not convinced this decision would be restricted to this case and that she was concerned that it would set an inappropriate precedent. Tony Izzo explained that applications in the future would only fall under the same interpretation if the facts are identical,and the Board would have to decide that. Ron Kim said that he believed in the six or so years he has served on the Board he does not recall having approved an interpretation. He added that the City Council could still modify the zoning ordinance. Harry MacAvoy said he agrees with the overall tone of the application but does not agree with the interpretation. He said he is a proponent of voting on interpretations in general but he is opposed to the impact of this interpretation. There being no further comments from the Board Harry MacAvoy called for a vote_ The motion carried (4-3). 7 #1978 ELLIOT & CAROL LOEII� (1 Lakeview Road) Page 3 of 7 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 04, 2002 Contractor Jay Nudi addressed the Board as representative for this application. Jay Nudi explained that the applicant is seeking to add a room on the side of the house,which is a unique situation because they wish to construct the addition without inhibiting the view of the lake. He added that there are no other options in regards to location of an addition for this property. Jay Nudi said the addition will be used as a hobby room and they are requesting a relief on the side yard setback from 10 feet to 3 feet. Harry MacAvoy noted, as per the drawing submitted,that only a fraction of the proposed hobby room would require setback relief due to the angle of the building in relation to the property line. Harry MacAvoy mid the drawing indicates the on the opposite side of the proposed work there is a dirt road and he wondered about a possible easement. Jay Nudi assured him that this issue was investigated and no problem exists with easements. Harry MacAvoy clarified that in order for this application to go forward not only is Zoning Board approval required but also the approval of the Home Owner's Association for Water's Edge. Elliot Loeb stated that he had received approval from the Home Owner's Association. There being no further questions from the Board Harry MacAvoy opened the meeting for a public hearing. Robert Pasciullo of I Beach Court, President of the Home Owner's Association, spoke on behalf of the Architectural Control Committee and the Home Owner's Association and said the project was approved unanimously. There being no further comments the public hearing was closed. #1979 SHELTERS OF SARATOGA (128 Grand Avenue) Janine Fanner was present to address the Board. Janine Farmer explained that the Shelters of Saratoga had submitted an application to NYSDHCR for project funding when they applied for the variance in the spring of 2001. Janine Farmer said their initial NYSDHCR grant application for the project was denied, however,they reapplied this past year and the grant was accepted this August. She said she questioned why NYSDHCR did not receive approval with the first grant application and was told it was due to money issues and Shelters of Saratoga needed to raise more funding. Once this was done,they received approval of their grant application. Janine Fanner said they hoped to start construction in the spring of 2003, however, there are additional approvals they will need to apply for before they actually proceed with construction. She stated that there have been no changes in their grant application or construction plans since the initial application to the Zoning Board. Harry MacAvoy asked Tony J77o what is the maximum allowance of time in regards to extension. Tony I•rzo said that issue is not clearly outlined in the zoning ordinances; however,typically they are written for 15 months maximum. He did add that the board can modify the 15 months. Harry MacAvoy explained to Janine Fanner that the charge of the Zoning Board in regards to extension was to ascertain whether there has been a change in the character of the neighborhood since the original Page 4 of 7 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 04,2002 DECISIONS #1978 ELLIOT & CAROL LOEB (1 Lakeview Road) Cynthia Hollowood moved and Mary Flanagan seconded that the area variance for the following relief: FROM TO One Side Yard Setback 10 feet 3 feet (Dimensional relief granted herein shall include any lesser dimensional relief between the required dimension and the granted dimension.)as shown on submitted plans be granted for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the benefit received from the variance will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood or on the health, safety and welfare of the community because it has received the approval of the homeowners' association. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that this action is the minimum variance that would be necessary and adequate because a more narrow room would not meet the homeowner's needs. 3. There are no other feasible methods by which the applicant can achieve the desired benefit because there is no other spot to construct an addition of this size. Ayes all. #1979 SHELTERS OF SARATOGA(128 Grand Avenue) Mary Flanagan moved and Ron Kim seconded that the applicant has demonstrated that the circumstances in the neighborhood have not changed since the original approval and the essential character of the neighborhood will not be adversely impacted by the granting of the extension. The variance granted on March 7,2001, is hereby extended through September 21, 2003. Ayes all. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business,Harry MacAvoy adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Johnson Clerk Approved: Page 7 of 7 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS WEDNESDAY,JULY 30,2003 COUNCIL ROOM, 7:00 P.M. MINUTES PRESENT: Amy Durland Mary Flanagan Nancy Goldberg Cindy Hollowood Ronald Kim Stephen Markovitz (7:05 p.m.) Christian Mathiesen ALSO PRESENT: Bradley Birge, Staff Tony Izzo, City Attorney CALL TO ORDER Chair Ronald Kim called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING It was agreed the next meeting of the Zoning Board would be held August 6, 2003, and September 17, 2003. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 4,2003 AND JUNE 24, 2003 Amy Durland moved and Chris Mathiesen seconded to approve the minutes of June 4, 2003. Chris Mathiesen moved to amend the minutes as submitted, seconded by Amy Durland. Ayes all (Amy Durland, Mary Flanagan, Nancy Goldberg, Cynthia Hollowood, Ronald Kim, Stephen Markovits, and Christian Mathiesen). Chris Mathiesen moved and Mary Flanagan seconded to approve the minutes of June 25, 2003. Nancy Goldberg moved to amend the minutes as submitted, seconded by Chris Mathiesen. Ayes all (Amy Durland, Mary Flanagan, Nancy Goldberg, Cynthia Hollowood, Ronald Kim, Stephen Markovits, and Christian Mathiesen). City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals July 30, 2003 2. The applicant has demonstrated that this action is the minimum variance that would be necessary and adequate and the State of New York mandates it. This refined air model is approved and regulated by the EPA and NYSDEC. 3. There are no other feasible methods by which the applicant can achieve the desired benefit because by not creating the one hundred foot stock could result in substantial fines and would cease the operation of a major industrial employer within the City generating currently 226 jobs and 18 million of annual salaries and benefits. Ayes: seven (Amy Durland, Mary Flanagan, Nancy Goldberg, Cynthia Hollowood, Ronald Kim, Stephen Markovits, and Christian Mathiesen); nays: zero. Motion carried. #2039 David Traver(163 Washington Street) Nancy Goldberg moved and Chris Mathiesen seconded the area variance for the following relief: FROM TO Front Yard Setback (Pleasant St.) 10 Feet 1.4 Feet (Dimensional relief granted shall include any lesser dimensional relief between the required dimension and the granted dimension) as shown on submitted plans be granted for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the benefit received from the variance will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood or on the health, safety and welfare of the community because the requested relief for the addition is consistent with the existing building. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that this action is the minimum variance that would be necessary and adequate to fulfill his family living needs. 3. There are no other feasible methods by which the applicant can achieve the desired benefit because the existing house and the shape of the lot precludes any other solution. Ayes: seven (Amy Durland, Mary Flanagan, Nancy Goldberg, Cynthia Hollowood, Ronald Kim, Stephen Markovits, and Christian Mathiesen); nays: zero. Motion carried. #2040 Woodlands at Saratoga Springs, Inc. (109 Kaydeross Park Road) Chris Mathiesen moved and Mary Flanagan seconded the area variance for the following relief: FROM TO Front Yard Setback (South Side) 30 Feet 26 Feet Page 6 of 10 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals July 30,2003 (Dimensional relief granted shall include any lesser dimensional relief between the required dimension and the granted dimension) as shown on submitted plans be granted for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the benefit received from the variance will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood or on the health, safety and welfare of the community because the proposed deck at the rear of this building is consistent in size and shape with the decks as they exist on Phase 6, 7 and 8 of this townhouse subdivision. This deck will not interfere with any neighborhood activities and the neighborhood association has approved this plan. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that this action is the minimum variance that would be necessary and adequate because this relief will allow adequate dimensions for a reasonably functional deck. 3. There are no other feasible methods by which the applicant can achieve the desired benefit because a deck constructed within the thirty-foot setback would be too small and not functional. Failure to provide a deck would adversely affect the value of this home. Ayes: seven (Amy Durland, Mary Flanagan, Nancy Goldberg, Cynthia Hollowood, Ronald Kim, and Christian Mathiesen); nays: one {Stephen Markovits). Motion carried. #2041 Woodlands at Saratoga Springs, Inc. {113 Kaydeross Park Road) Chris Mathiesen moved and Cindy Hollowood seconded the area variance for the following relief: FROM L TO Front Yard Setback 30 Feet 21 Feet (Dimensional relief granted shall include any lesser dimensional relief between the required dimension and the granted dimension) as shown on submitted plans be granted for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the benefit received from the variance will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood or on the health, safety and welfare of the community because the proposed deck at the rear of the building is consistent in size and shape with the decks as they exist in Phase 6, 7 and 8 of this townhouse subdivision. This deck will not interfere with any neighborhood activities and the neighborhood association has approved this proposal. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that this action is the minimum variance that would be - necessary and adequate because this relief will allow adequate dimensions for a reasonably functional deck. Page 7 of 10 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals July 30, 2003 3. There are no other feasible methods by which the applicant can achieve the desired benefit because a deck constructed with the thirty-foot required setback would be too small and not functional. Failure to provide a deck would adversely affect the value of this home. Ayes: six (Amy Durland, Mary Flanagan, Nancy Goldberg, Cynthia Hollowood, Ronald Kim and Christian Mathiesen); nays: zero: abstention; one (Stephen Markovitz). Motion carried. #2042 Woodlands at Sa_TMatoga_ rings, Inc. (111 Kaydeross Park Road) Chris Mathiesen moved and Amy Durland seconded the area variance for the following relief: FROM TO Front Yard Setback 30 Feet 24 Feet (Dimensional relief granted shall include any lesser dimensional relief between the required dimension and the granted dimension) as shown on submitted plans be granted for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the benefit received from the variance will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood or on the health, safety and welfare of the community because the proposed deck at the rear of the building is consistent in size and shape with the decks as they exist in Phase 6, 7 and 8 of this townhouse subdivision. This deck will not interfere with any neighborhood activities and the neighborhood association has approved this proposal. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that this action is the minimum variance that would be necessary and adequate because this relief will allow adequate dimensions for a reasonably functional deck. 3. There are no other feasible methods by which the applicant can achieve the desired benefit because a deck constructed within the thirty-foot required setback would be too small and not functional. Failure to provide a deck would adversely affect the value of this home. Ayes: six (Amy Durland, Mary Flanagan, Nancy Goldberg, Cynthia Hollowood, Ronald Kim and Christian Mathiesen); nays: zero: abstention; one {Stephen Markovitz). Motion carried. #2048 Witt Construction, Inc. (65 Granite Street/80 Greeenfield Avenue) Stephen Markovitz moved and Chris Mathiesen seconded the area variance for the following relief: FROM TO Lot Coverage 30 % 35% Page 8 of 10 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS WEDNESDAY, MAY 5,2004 CITY COURT ROOM, 7:00 P.M. MINUTES PRESENT: Amy Durland Eileen Finneran Mary Flanagan Nancy Goldberg Ronald Kim Christian Mathiesen Eric Schreck ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Bradley Birge, Staff Tony Izzo, City Attorney CALL TO ORDER Chair Ronald Kim called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. DECISIONS ON APPLICATIONS #2104 Fazio Residence (19 Sundance Drive) This is an application for an area variance to remove the existing open deck at the rear of the existing single-family residence and build a three season room approximately in the same location of the existing deck in the Interlaken PUD district. Amy Durland moved and Mary Flanagan seconded that the area variance to permit: FROM TO Rear Yard Setback 30 Feet 2$_5 Feet Total Side Setback 25 Feet 24 Feet City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals May 5, 2004 reconstructed in order to conform to the building line of this unusually shaped lot and there is no more adjacent land available for purchase for the purpose of expanding the size of the lot. There are no feasible alternatives to allowing this residence to continue on this parcel as built. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood character nor create a detriment to nearby properties because this variance represents no change whatsoever to this neighborhood. The residence that has existed for many years will be undergoing no changes. Two neighbors have expressed their support for this variance. 3. The applicant has not demonstrated this variance is not substantial; however, the impact of the dimensional relief requested on neighboring properties is lessened by the significant distance from buildings on both the east and the west In fact, if the side property lines were perpendicular to Roberts Lane rather than at acute angles, the side yard setback requirements would easily be met. The rear yard is very shallow and thus requires a very substantial variance, but the land that this yard abuts is on a very steep incline and will never be developed. 4. The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district because no physical or environmental changes will occur because of the continued occupancy of this residence. 5. The applicant has demonstrated the alleged difficulty was not self-created because the applicant purchased this home in 1997, which is over a decade since the house was originally built and occupied. The applicant was not aware of the deficient setback and area requirements until a recent survey was ordered. Ayes: seven (Amy Durland, Eileen Finneran, Mary Flanagan, Nancy Goldberg, Ron Kim, Chris Mathiesen and Eric Schreck); nays: zero. Motion carried. #2108 Barry Residence (69 Vista Drive) This is an application for an area variance to construct a two-story addition at the rear of this existing single-family residence building in the Water's Edge/Woodlands on Saratoga Lake PUD district. Chris Mathiesen moved and Nancy Goldberg seconded that the area variance to permit: FROM TO Rear yard setback 25 Feet 23 Feet, 9 Inches as shown on submitted plans, and in consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, be granted for the following reasons: Page 4 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals May 5, 2004 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant because the expense of refoiinulating the architectural plans in order to provide an addition with adequate living space within the rear yard building line is too great a financial burden. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood character nor create a detriment to nearby properties because the dimensional relief requested is limited to the rear of the home and will not be at all evident to others in the neighborhood. 3. The applicant has demonstrated this variance is not substantial because this request for dimensional relief involves slightly more than one foot consisting mostly of the roof overhang at the south-east corner of the proposed building addition. 4_ The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district because this building addition requires only one minor variance for the rear yard setback. All other dimensional requirements are met including maximum lot coverage. 5. The applicant has not demonstrated the alleged difficulty was not self-created. In fact, the applicant has acknowledged that the difficulty was a result of an architectural miscalculation and thus, by definition, was self created. However, this is not fatal to this application. Ayes: seven (Amy Durland, Eileen Finneran, Mary Flanagan, Nancy Goldberg, Ron Kim, Chris Mathiesen and Eric Schreck); nays: zero. Motion carried. #2109 Sellers Residence (73 Fifth Avenue) This is an application for an area variance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing single family residence in an Urban Residential - 1 district. Nancy Goldberg moved and Mary Flanagan seconded that the area variance to permit: FROM TO Front yard setback 30 Feet 27.2 Feet West side yard setback 12 Feet 6.7 Feet Total side yard setback 30 Feet 23.3 Feet (dimensional relief granted shall include any lesser dimensional relief between the required dimension and the granted dimension) as shown on submitted plans, and in consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, be granted for the following reasons: Page 5 �oc.-1 BOARD OF APPEALS !IJ X- MINUTES • r}" MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2007 7:00 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL ROOM 5� PRESENT: Nancy Goldberg, Chair; Carol Maguire, Vice-Chair; Matthew Veitch; Eric Schreck; Janine Stuchin; Pell Kennedy; Gabe Anderson ABSENT: No one STAFF: Susan Barden, Assistant City Planner CALL TO ORDER Chair Nancy Goldberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR There were no comments from the Chair. APPLICATIONS: #2396 ANDERSON/SWEENEY PROPERTY, 34 Longwood Drive This was an application requesting relief from the minimum mean lot width requirement for proposed construction of a single-family dwelling in an Urban Residential-1 District. The applicants were Ronald Anderson and Kelly Sweeney. AREA VARIANCE - -Min. lot width: 100-ft. Proposed: 95.7-ft. Total relief 4.3-ft. requested: 4.3% Nancy Goldberg noted that this application was adjourned to the December 3, 2007 meeting. #2331 URELL MIXED-USE BUILDING, 65 Beekman Street This was an application requesting reaffirmation of previous area variances granted on September 25, 2006 for a proposed 3-story mixed-use building in a Neighborhood Complementary Use District-1; the proposed modification is for a 2-story building. PUBLIC HEARING : Nancy Goldberg said that the public hearing was still open from the November 19, 2007 meeting. There being no one that wished to speak, Nancy Goldberg closed the public hearing. Eric Schreck moved and Janine Stuchin seconded that in consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, that the application of Lynne Urell, for the premises at 65 Beekman Street, for a modification to previous area variance approval of a mixed-use building, in a Neighborhood Complimentary Use District-1 and requesting the following relief: AREA VARIANCE -Min,front setback: 10' Proposed: 0' Total relief requested: 10' -Max. lot coverage: 30% Proposed: 44% Total relief requested: 14% 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created due to land surveyor mistake, but this is not fatal to the application. There being no further discussion from the Board, Nancy Goldberg requested a roll call. Vote: 7-0 motion carried. AYES: N. Goldberg, C, Maguire, M. Veitch, E. Schreck, J. Stuchin, P. Kennedy, G. Anderson NAYS: None --V #2424 VAN ZANDT PORCH,, 76 Vista Drive This was an application requesting relief from the minimum rear yard setback for proposed construction of an enclosed porch addition to an existing single-family residence in the Water's Edge PUD. PUBLIC HEARING : Nancy Goldberg said that the public hearing was still open from the November 19, 2007 meeting. There being no one that wished to speak, Nancy Goldberg closed the public hearing. Matthew Veitch moved and Eric Schreck seconded that in consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, that the application of Richard and Sheila Van Zandt, for the premises at 76 Vista Drive, for the proposed construction of an enclosed porch addition to an existing single-family residence in the Water's Edge PUD, and requesting the following relief: AREA VARIANCE -Min.rear yard setback: Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: 25-ft. - 18.6-ft. 6.4-ft.(25%) As shown on the submitted plans, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant explored making the porch smaller, or by moving the location of the porch, but it was deemed cost prohibitive, and not in keeping with the neighborhood. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties because the applicant is constructing a porch that is a match to another covered porch constructed on a different residence at the same structure. Other residences have covered porch additions in this area. The homeowner's association approved this addition being built on this structure. 3. The applicant has demonstrated this variance is not substantial. The relief of 7' is not considered to be substantial. This is the minimum variance that can be granted for the applicant to achieve their goals. 4. The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. However, the self-created nature of this variance request is not fatal to the application. 6. The following conditions must be met: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes-Monday, November 26,2007-Page 8 of 9 1. This variance is only applicable to this property. This variance does not apply to the entire PUD district. There being no further discussion from the Board, Nancy Goldberg requested a roll call. Vote: 7-0 motion carried. AYES: N. Goldberg, C, Maguire, M. Veitch, E. Schreck, J. Stuchin, P. Kennedy, G. Anderson NAYS: None OTHERREms Nancy Goldberg said that the board would need to work on approving minutes so that they are up to date. Susan Barden said that Mark Schachner was available for additional training for the board. The board tentatively agreed to additional training at the December 10, 2007 meeting at 6 p.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Nancy Goldberg adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nicole Wells Clerk Approved: January 17, 2008 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes-Monday, November 26,2007-Page 9 of 9 , ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1-1 \ MINUTESa � F THiRSDAI,APRIL 10,2008 f/„,, 7:00 P_11 CITY COUNCIL ROOM ESENT: Nancy Goldberg, Chair; Carol Maguire, Vice-Chair; Eric Schreck, Secretary; Janine Stuchin, Pell Kennedy, Mary Anne Macica, Keith Kaplan ABSENT: None STAFF: Susan Barden, Assistant City Planner Tony Izzo, Counsel CALL TO ORDER Chair Nancy Goldberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Nancy Goldberg announced the agenda for Thursday, April 10. #2441 Sodemann Two-Family, 29 Madison Street; #2446 Varley Residence, 10 Marion Place, has been adjourned to May 8; #2449 King Residence, 120 Fifth Avenue; #2451 Wise Building, 2 West Avenue and 306 Church Street; #2462 Roberts Lot Line Adjustment, 437 Crescent Avenue has been adjourned to May 8 because it went before the Planning Board, which has not made a decision yet; #2453 Olde Saratoga Brewing Co., 131 Excelsior Avenue; #2458 Ritzert Sunroom, 30 Arrowhead Road; #2455 Olde Bryan Inn Awning, 123 Maple Avenue; #2456 193 Lake Avenue Professional Office, 193 Lake Avenue; #2457 Jelenik Residential Building, 309 Grand Avenue; #2454 Rekucki Additions, 120 High Rock Avenue; #2459 1 Ballston Avenue Additions, 1 Ballston Avenue. APPLICATIONS 2 #2441 Sodemann Two-Family, 29 Madison Street This is an interpretation of the status of two existing residential structures in an Urban Residential-2 District. PUBLIC HEARING: Nancy Goldberg closed the public hearing. Carol Maguire read the motion and Janine Stuchin seconded. DISCUSSION: Eric Schreck will vote against the denial of the interpretation. The ultimate concern is what does this do for the applicant vs. the neighborhood. If the Board doesn't give this interpretation, it is a useless structure there. He holds residential structures differently than commercial. When a business stops being a business, then it is cut and dry, they lose their use as pre-existing nonconforming. Just because a mother-in-law apartment isn't used, it is still there, it just isn't used for that time. Leases often don't exist for family or are for short periods of time. Utilities are difficult to separate, sometimes there are not two boxes. Nancy Goldberg said this is an interpretation, it doesn't affect just this property. When something is interpreted, it is changing the City law. She is going to vote for this motion because it is the law. Keith Kaplan addressed Nancy Goldberg's comments. He is also against this motion. The focus is whether there was an abandonment, and that is where precedent would be, it would be a very limited precedent. Nancy Goldberg said this interpretation is not about abandonment. The Board can't change density in any neighborhood, that is reserved for the City Council. The interpretation is about whether it is a two-family. Keith Kaplan thoroughly disagrees with the premise for the motion, that there is a lack of evidence, he doesn't think that is germane. It is a casual family use, but it is continuous family use. There is plenty of precedent in I VI VIIVII I..ua.�L % .f--< <v ut.+}.Pi vv�. LI Iti vvl.A... �uIIu III . 2 #2453 Olde Saratoga Brewing Co., 131 Excelsior Avenue This is an application for an area variance associated with proposed building additions to the existing bottling plant; seeking relief from the minimum frontage build-out, building height, and build-to-line requirements in a Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District. PUBLIC HEARING: There were no public comments, the public hearing was closed. COUNTY ADVISORY: Susan Barden said there were no county impacts. DECISION: Eric Schreck made a motion that in the matter of the appeal of Robert Craven/Olde Saratoga Brewing Company, from the Building Inspector denial for the premises at 131 Excelsior Avenue, whereas, the applicant has applied for an area variance for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance to construct two building additions to the existing bottling plant in a T-5 District; whereas, in consideration of the balance between the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution and finding of fact, that the requested area variance for the following relief, as described th submitted 1' la b t .J d ti-.. following lief + In ll le Suu111i&LGU application and ILl plans, be granted I01 LI IUIIVVVII1 relief requested: Build to line 0 to 12 feet required, proposed 73.8 feet, relief requested 61.8 feet; frontage build-out 70% minimum required, proposed 0%; building height minimum two stories, proposed one story. Note: granted dimensional relief shall include any lesser dimensional relief between the required and granted dimension. 1. The benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant for the following reasons. The existing building is a pre-existing non-conforming building in a T-5 District. The requested additions to the building are specifically designed to fit the existing assembly line. Any design of the building to fit the T-5 code would add additional cost and reduce the efficiency of the current bottling process. 2. The desired benefit will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties for the following reasons. The proposed additions are to an existing bottling facility. The property across the street is in keeping with the design and manufacturing use of the subject property. No negative neighbor impacts were noted. 3. The request is not deemed substantial for the following reasons. While the request may first appear substantial, the existing building already varies significantly from the code in a T-5 District. The additions are one-story; however, the height is similar to the height of a two-story building. 4. The request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects for the following reasons. As the use of the building will not change, any environmental effects, such as odors, will remain the same. The T-5 District does not have permeability minimums; however, the decrease in permeability will be minor in relation to the size of the property. In addition, the footprint of the additions is largely paved already. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created, but this alone is not necessarily fatal to the application. It is so moved April 10, 2008. Seconded by Janine Stuchin Vote: Carol Maguire, in favor; Mary Anne Macica, in favor; Pell Kennedy, in favor; Janine Stuchin, in favor; Keith Kaplan, is l favor; Eric. Schreck, in favor; Nancy Goldberg, in favor. Motion passes 7-0. —��2 #2458 Ritzert Sunroom, 30 Arrowhead Road This is an application for an area variance associated with the proposed construction of an enclosed sunroom at the rear of the existing residence; seeking relief from the minimum rear yard setback in the Water's Edge PUD. PUBLIC HEARING: There was no public comment, the public hearing was closed. DECISION: Mary Anne Macica made a motion that in the matter of the appeal of Patricia Ritzert, 30 Arrowhead Road, Saratoga Springs, New York 12866, from the Building Inspector determination for the premises at 30 Hrrowneaa rcoaa, Saratoga springs, New YorK, 1 bb iaentfriea as l ax rarcel Section , tiIOCK 1 , Lot 4/ Outside District, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York Whereas, the appellant has applied for an area variance for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance to construct a 3-season room, or sunroom, located at the rear of the existing attached single-family residence in the Waters Edge on Saratoga Lake PUD and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on April 3, 2008. The application was denied by the Building Inspector upon the grounds that such use of the property would violate the City Zoning Ordinance Article Chapter 241.4. Whereas, in consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution and finding of fact that the requested area variance for the following relief, as described in the submitted application and plans, be granted. The applicant has requested relief from the rear yard setback from a 25-foot minimum to 15.7 feet or 15 feet 8 '/ inches, or relief of 9.3 feet or less, as per the submitted plot plan. 1. The benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant for the following reasons. In constructing a 3-season or sunroom of this design attached to a building that met the existing setbacks, the width of the room could be no more than 10 feet. With the mass and scale of the existing building, and existing sunroom at the opposite end of the building, a smaller room would not appear aesthetically pleasing. It is also not feasible to purchase any land that currently belongs to the homeowners association. 2. The desired benefit will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties for the following reasons. Over recent years, there have been a number of other property owners in the Waters Edge on Saratoga Lake PUD that have come before the Zoning Board of Appeals for the City of Saratoga Springs to ask for similar size variances of the same purpose as this request. All of these past variances have been granted, including one in the same building as the applicant's, located at the opposite end. Being that this will be substantially the same as the opposing end of the building, it would add symmetry and would compliment not only this building, but the others which have also constructed similar additions. 3. The request is deemed substantial for the following reasons. The rear setback line for all units in the Waters Edge on Saratoga Lake PUD is 25 feet to the lands owned by the homeowners association. This variance of 15 feet 8 '/2 inches represents a 62.8% area variance. A variance in excess of 50% is substantial. 4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects for the following reasons: The PUD is fully built-out in keeping with its legislation requirements regarding physical characteristics of the buildings and the percentage of green space maintained by the homeowners association. A letter of approval from the association states that they see no negative effect by this variance and addition and are in support of the same. This was also supported by the applicant's adjacent neighbor who lives at 28 Arrowhead Road, who spoke favorably about the project. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created for the following reasons. The construction of a 3-season or sunroom addition to the house is an improvement the homeowner desires, it is not a necessity. By doing so, this difficulty is self-created but is not fatal to the application. Seconded by Janine Stuchin. It is so moved April 10, 2008. Vote: Carol Maguire, in favor; Mary Anne Macica, in favor; Pell Kennedy, in favor; Janine Stuchin, in favor; Keith Kaplan, in favor; Eric Schreck, in favor; Nancy Goldberg, in favor. Motion passes 7-0. 2 #2455 Olde Bryan Inn Awning, 123 Maple Avenue This is an application for an area variance associated with the proposed maintenance of a permanent awning on „To, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2009 if 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL Room PRESENT: Carol Ann Maguire, Vice-Chair; Janine Stuchin, Secretary; Nancy Goldberg; Eric Schreck (arrived at 7:10); Keith Kaplan (arrived at 7:06); Bill Moore ABSENT: Mary Anne Macica, Chair STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney SALUTE TO THE FLAG CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Carol Ann Maguire called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. She stated that the absent Board members will watch the tape and will be able to render any decisions. She also stated that an applicant who does not wish to present to a Board that is less than full has the right to adjourn, or they may still be heard. ADJOURNED APPLICATIONS #2499 Holiday Inn Signs, 232 Broadway, adjourned to March 5, 2009 #2354 SBA Properties, Inc., and Verizon Wireless, 84 Weibel Avenue, adjourned to February 12, 2009 #2353 SBA Network Services, Inc. and Verizon Wireless Communications Facility, 2328 Route 50, adjourned to February 12, 2009 #2355 Cellco Partnership and Verizon Wireless, 252 Washington Street, adjourned to March 5, 2009 APPLICATIONS #2502 Saratoga Strike Zone, 32 Ballston Avenue This is an Area Variance for a proposed 2,990 square foot addition to the existing building; seeking relief from the build-to line and frontage build-out requirements of the Transect-5 District. SEQR This is a listed Type II action, less than 4,000 square feet, not involving a change in zoning or a Use Variance, consistent with land use controls, and is, therefore, exempt from further SEQR review. Variance requested: Required Existing Proposed Total Relief Requested Build-to-line 0-12" 20', 10" 19', 5" 7', 5" (100%) Frontage Build-out 70% 0% 0% 70% (100%) Carol Ann Maguire noted that the actual dimensions on the Area Variance were incorrect as stated, and they have been corrected. Appearing before the Board were Bret Balzer and Michael Tuck, representing Frank Parillo and the Saratoga Strike Zone. Michael Tuck said they are requesting 2 variances. He said the business is a bowling center which currently exists. Nancy Goldberg asked if this zone requires 2-stories. Michael Tuck said they originally had included relief from a 2-story requirement, but because the addition is less than 3,000 square feet, it has been determined that the variance is not required. He said that the structure is a 32,000 square foot existing single-story building, bound on multiple sides by streets and an irregular lot configuration, which has caused the non- conforming zoning issues. He said the irregular roof has caused ice build-up and has led to the impetus for this project. He said there is water leakage into the building and unsafe water coming off the building onto the sidewalk. (Eric Schreck arrived at 7:10) Michael Tuck said the addition is proposed in its location to front on Ballston Avenue, which is the primary street, giving the best opportunity to present a face to that street, which is respectful of the T-5 design standards. He said the location of the building has caused parking to be separated, which is connected by an internal driveway, which provides a safe way to get from one to the other without having to go back out into traffic; he said this is a critical component to the site. He said the applicant is requesting relief from the build-to-line, which will have zero frontage for 100% relief requested. He said the addition will greatly enhance the aesthetics of the building, bringing it more in line with the scale of the neighboring community. He said the addition will present a face to Ballston Avenue, and will break down the long mass by providing additional height, as well as screening of the mechanical systems. Carol Ann Maguire said this is one stop on a multi-phased process. She said Saratoga County Planning Board referral is required, DRC Architectural Review is required, and Planning Board Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review are required. She asked if any existing parking spaces will be eliminated. Michael Tuck said none will be removed, but bowling lanes will be eliminated. Janine Stuchin asked if there are any curb cut changes, or if the entrance to the building will change. Michael Tuck said there will be no curb cut changes. He said the physical entrance to the building will move further west due to interior reconfiguration. Janine Stuchin noted that there are some blind spots in the internal driveway, which is very challenging, right where the addition is taking place, but she understands that the Planning Board will review this. PUBLIC HEARING: Hearing none, Carol Ann Maguire said the public hearing will be left open, particularly since the Chair was not present. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes—Thursday,February 4,2009-Page 2 of 4 Carol Ann Maguire stated that a decision will be rendered next week. #2503 Britten Porch., 99 Vista Drive This is an Area Variance to extend the existing rear deck and enclose creating a screened porch on the rear of the existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum rear yard setback in the Water's Edge PUD. SEQR: Carol Ann Maguire said this is a listed Type II action, granting an Area Variance to a 1, 2 or 3- family residence and is, therefore, exempt from further SEQR review. Variance requested: Required Proposed Total Relief Requested Min. rear yard setback 25' 16' 9' (36%) Appearing before the Board were William Shell and Eric Lewis, contractors representing the owners. William Shell said the applicant would like to extend the existing deck and cover it with a screened porch to make the exterior match the home. He said the back property line has an angle where the corner of the existing deck goes over the setback. He said they are looking to extend it a little further on that corner. He said the rest falls within the 25-foot setback. He said if they were just extending the deck, they wouldn't need a variance, but because of the roof, a variance is required. He said it is not tying into any rooflines of the building, it is just attaching off the back of the house. Janine Stuchin noted that the alleged difficulty is self-created. Carol Ann Maguire said this is not fatal to the application. Keith Kaplan asked what the incremental effect is. William Shell said it would be 5 feet further than the existing deck, which is currently 4 feet over the line. He said it is well short of other porches. Nancy Goldberg asked if they have permission from the Homeowners' Association. William Shell said yes, Mr. and Mrs. Britten presented a copy of that approval. Eric Schreck asked is this in-line with the other decks. William Shell said the neighboring one goes back quite a bit further. PUBLIC HEARING: Hearing none, Carol Ann Maguire left the public hearing open. A decision will be rendered at next week's meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The meeting minutes from January 8, 2008, and January 15, 2008, were reviewed with changes and corrections made. DECISION: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes--Thursday,February 4,2009-Page 3 of 4 Janine Stuchin moved to approve the minutes of January 8, 2008, and January 15, 2008, as revised. Seconded by Keith Kaplan. Vote: Carol Ann Maguire, in favor; Janine Stuchin, in favor; Nancy Goldberg, in favor; Eric Schreck, in favor; Keith Kaplan, in favor; Bill Moore, in favor. Motion passes 6-0 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Carol Ann Maguire adjourned the meeting at 7:38 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Livsey Recording Secretary Approved 3/5/09 by vote 4-0-2 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes—Thursday,February 4,2009-Page 4 of 4 .._�+{1G , sf ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 'f ' MINUTES itl .. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2009 ',/-1-Th 1 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL Room PRESENT: Mary Anne Macica, Chair; Carol Ann Maguire, Vice-Chair; Janine Stuchin, Secretary; Nancy Goldberg; Eric Schreck (arrived 7:03); Keith Kaplan; Bill Moore ABSENT: STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney ALSO PRESENT; Mark Hoppe, Consulting Engineer; Mark Schachner, Consulting Attorney (arrived at 9:57 P.M.) CALL TO ORDER Chair, Mary Anne Macica, called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. Eric Schreck arrived at 7:03 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ADJOURNED APPLICATIONS #2499 Holiday Inn Signs, 232 Broadway #2355 Cellco Partnership and Verizon Wireless, 252 Washington Street APPLICATIONS 4- #2502 Saratoga Strike Zone, 32 Ballston Avenue This is an application for an Area Variance for a proposed 2,990 square foot addition to the existing building; seeking relief from the build-to line and frontage build-out requirements of the Transect-5 District. SEQR: This is a Type II action, regarding construction or expansion of a primary or accessory, non- residential structure or facility involving less than 4,000 square feet of gross area, and not involving a change in the zoning or a use variance, and consistent with the land use controls, but not radio communications or microwave transmission facility; therefore, is exempt from further SEQR review. SARATOGA COUNTY: No county impact. Site plan review and architectural reviews are required. PUBLIC HEARING: Hearing None. The public hearing was closed at 7:06 P.M. DECISION: Carol Ann Maguire moved that IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL of Frank Parillo, 32 Ballston Avenue, Saratoga Springs, New York 12866, from the Building Inspector's determination for the premises at 32 Ballston Avenue, identified as Tax Parcel Section 165.83, Block 1, Lot 42, Inside District of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York WHEREAS, the appellant has applied for an AREA VARIANCE for relief for the current City Zoning Ordinance to construct a 2,990 square foot addition to the existing building, seeking relief from the build-to line and frontage build-out requirements in a Transect-5 neighborhood Center and public notice have been duly given of a hearing on said application held on February 5 and February 12, 2009. WHEREAS, in consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution and finding of fact that the requested AREA VARIANCE for the following relief, as described in the submitted application and plans, be GRANTED: Area Variance: Required Existing Proposed Total Relief Requested Build-to Line 0-12 feet 20 feet, 10 19 feet, 5 inches 7 feet, 5 inches (100%) inches Frontage Build-out 70% 0% 0% 70% (100%) Note: Granted dimensional relief shall include any lesser dimensional relief between the required and the granted dimension. 1. The benefit CANNOT be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant for the following reasons: The location of the proposed addition along the Ballston Avenue side of the existing structure is an effort to provide greater compliance with the requirements of the Transect-5 District. The existing building is pre-existing non-conforming with regard to the requirements of the Transect-5 District, the build-to-line, and frontage build-out. The applicant states: "The proposed addition has been located specifically to improve the existing non-conforming structure's relationship to Ballston Avenue." 2. The desired benefit WILL NOT produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties for the following reasons: The existing use of the property will not change. The proposed addition will bring the building into greater conformance with current T-5 District zoning requirements. The City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes—Thursday,February 12,2009-Page 2 of 20 applicant states in his application that "The proposed addition represents less than a 10% increase to the building area." 3. The request is deemed substantial, HOWEVER: The structure is pre-existing on the lot and was made non-conforming with the zoning district change to T-5. The applicant indicated in his application that there is limited opportunity for the owner to conform to current zoning requirements due to the location of the existing structure on the lot. The siting of the addition, as per submitted plans, provides greater conformance with the requirements of the Transect-5 District. 4. The request WILL NOT have adverse physical or environmental effects for the following reasons: The proposed addition will not alter current access to the site. The Saratoga County Planning Board recommended "No significant county-wide or inter-community impact." Since Site Plan review by the Planning Board is required, a stormwater management plan will need to be submitted as part of that review. 5. The alleged difficulty IS self-created, but this is not, in and of itself, fatal to the application. The applicant indicates that "the desire and need for this addition is self-created." The applicant further acknowledges that the alleged difficulty was created by the current owner. PLEASE NOTE: This Area Variance requires the following approvals: Site Plan Review is required by the Planning Board Architectural Review is required by the Design Review Commission It is so moved, February 12, 2009 Seconded by Janine Stuchin. DISCUSSION: None Vote: Mary Anne Macica, in favor; Carol Ann Maguire, in favor; Janine Stuchin, in favor; Nancy Goldberg, in favor; Eric Schreck, in favor; Keith Kaplan, in favor; Bill Moore, in favor. Motion passes 7-0. #2503 Britten Porch, 99 Vista Drive City of Saratoga Springs Toning Hoard Minutes—Thursday.February 12,2009-Page 3 of 20 This is an application for an Area Variance to extend the existing rear deck and enclose creating a screened porch on the rear of the existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum rear yard setback in the Water's Edge PUD. SEQR: This is a Type II action, regarding a 1, 2 or 3-family house and is, therefore, exempt from further SEQR review. DISCLOSURES: None. PUBLIC HEARING: The Public Hearing was opened on February 5, 2009. A letter was received from Kathy Evans, Chair of the Architectural Control Committee from Water's Edge Homeowners' Association, dated November 12, 2008, approving the request. The public hearing was closed at 7:14. DECISION: Janine Stuchin moved that IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL of Donald Britten, 99 Vista Drive, Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the application of Donald Britten for an AREA VARIANCE for the Premises at 99 Vista Drive be APPROVED to permit the single-family home to have a screened porch extended deck and cover and requesting the following relief or lesser dimensions: Area Variance: Required Existing Proposed Total Relief Requested Building Setback Rear 25 feet 0 16 feet 9 feet As shown on the submitted plans. 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The applicant felt that the addition of the porch at the rear of the home where a deck is currently located is the only feasible location. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The screened porch will be designed to match existing architecture. The roof line will be lower than existing structures. Existing structures from adjacent properties extend out past the proposed project, but due to the property angle, fall within the setback line. 3. The applicant has demonstrated this variance is not substantial. The relief requested for 9 feet involves one corner of the proposed project as the property line angles back between the house and communal property of the Homeowners' Association. 4. The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The project extends approximately 5 feet past the existing deck. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes—Thursday,February 12,2009-Page 4 of 20 It is so moved, Thursday, February 12, 2009. Seconded by Keith Kaplan. Vote: Mary Anne Macica, in favor; Carol Ann Maguire, in favor; Janine Stuchin, in favor; Nancy Goldberg, in favor; Eric Schreck, in favor; Keith Kaplan, in favor; Bill Moore, in favor. Motion passes 7-0. #2354 SBA Properties, Inc. and Verizon Wireless, 84 Weibel Avenue (Shaara Tfille) This is an application for a Use Variance for construction of the telecommunication facility in a Transect-5 District. SEQR: This is an unlisted action and a coordinated review, the Zoning Board of Appeals is lead agency. DISCLOSURES: Nancy Goldberg said in the past she has been a member of the synagogue. She has no economic or financial connection or obligation. Appearing before the Board was Mark Sweeney, attorney with Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna, representing the applicant. Mark Sweeney submitted a letter to the Board, which states that there was a competing site put forward by National Grid Wireless in close proximity along Weibel Avenue. SBA has acquired that site and has decided to proceed on with the site at the JCC. They feel that the visibility of the site is better at this location, the site is a 105-foot stealth monopine application, as opposed to a 150-foot monopole. He said while the design of the site could be changed at the other location, the height requirements, due to topographical and other features, would require a taller facility at that location. SBA is submitting this letter identifying that they are asking the Board to withdraw that application without prejudice, they will evaluate the National Grid Wireless site as an alternative, but they will proceed with one facility and take the other one off the table. He said he has no new information to submit tonight on this facility. He said they had submitted alternate layout plans, the height has been changed from a 150-foot monopole, and at the Board's request they are considering a pine tree application reduced to 105 feet. He said they will still have opportunity for 3 or 4 co-locations on the facility. He said this will be a little tighter than it would have been otherwise, it will be closer to the trees than otherwise, but it is a compromise in terms of minimizing the visibility of the site and making it a viable co-location opportunity. He said the applicant would like to work with Mark Hoppe, the City's consultant, to resolve any documents they need to provide for consideration by this Board in March. Mary Anne Macica asked if the applicant has looked at the location on municipal property. Mark Sweeney said they have inquired about 3 properties in that area, but have not received a positive answer from the City. Peter Gutos, CA Smith Engineering, said approximately 3 years ago they had looked at the former landfill, the current hockey facility, and adjoining lands to the hockey facility. Mary Anne Macica asked if this has been re-approached in the last 6 months, City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes•-Thursday,February 12,2009-Page 5 of 20 �, -' ZONING BOARDOF APPEALS a\• ! 14 `— MINUTES „ MONDAY,APRIL 26, 2010 V/ 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Mary Anne Macica, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG PRESENT: Mary Anne Macica, Chair; Carol Ann Maguire, Vice-Chair; Keith Kaplan, Secretary; Bill Moore; G. Hasbrouck; George "Skip" Carlson; STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, Tony izzo, Assistant City Attorney OLD BUSINESS 1. #2557 White Residence, 36 Tyler Drive, area variance for basement egress (stairwell and door); seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback in the Waters Edge Planned Unit Development. Chairman Mary Ann Macica stated the Board is in receipt of a letter from the Waters Edge Planned Unit Development Homeowners Association. She stated that as a matter of housekeeping the publication in the newspaper has not been paid for. The applicant stated this has been taken care of and will speak with staff regarding this issue. Mary Ann Macica stated that any resolution that is made will be conditioned an the proof that it is done. Mary Anne Macica, Chair questioned if any board member had any questions. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Mary Anne Macica questioned if anyone in the audience wished to discuss the White application. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: The public hearing was closed at 7:04PM. George Carlson moved that in the matter of the Appeal of Terry White, 36 Tyler Drive, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866: from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises located at 36 Tyler Drive, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 192.12-2-22, within the Outside District located in the Waters Edge Planned Unit Development of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance for basement egress (stairwell and door) to an existing single family residence and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held April 12, 2010 and April 26, 2010. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following area variance for the following amount of relief: Required Existing Proposed Total relief--_ requested Minimum side 10 ft. 15 ft. 6ft. 10in. 3 ft. 2 in. yard setback (31.66%) (southside) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1). The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The addition is the installation of a Bilco door and entry stairwell on the South side of the house. The location of the egress was chosen because of its accessibility from the front walkway and because it does not have a deck or any other existing structure in the intended location. No area is available in the rear of the property as that area is dominated by windows. 2). The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. The Architectural Control Committee of the Water's Edge/Woodlands on Saratoga Lake Homeowners Association, Inc., approved the request of the installation of the Bilco door and perma entry at its meeting held on April 21, 2010. 3). The variance is substantial. The applicant is requesting the addition of a structure to within 6 feet 10 inches of the South property line. 4). The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The proposed alterations appear to compliment the residential nature of the area both in size and quality of the materials used. The adjacent neighbor has a Bilco door comparable to the proposed addition of the applicant. 5). The applicants desire to construct the addition is self created. The self created difficulty is not necessarily fatal to the application. CONDITION: Applicant shall provide an affidavit of publication for the application. It is so moved April 26, 2010. Seconded by Gary Hasbrouck. DISCUSSION: City of Saratoga Springs Toning Board Minutes--Monday,February 22,Page 2 of 6 Keith Kaplan interjected that the resolution states several references to the east side of the house, it appears to him from the plans that they are talking about the south side of the house that this is on. Upon review of plans, area variance standards #1 and #3 should state South side. Carol Ann Maguire stated just for purposes of housekeeping do we wish to end this draft resolution by it is so moved: April 26, 2010. VOTE: MA Macica, in favor; C. Maguire, in favor; K. Kaplan, in favor; B. Moore, in favor G. Hasbrouck in favor; G. Carlson, in favor Motion passes 6-0. 2. #2559 Saratoga Hospital, 211 Church Street, area variance to erect signage; seeking relief from the maximum area for a new wall sign and from the maximum area and height for a new freestanding sign in the Saratoga Hospital Planned Unit Development. The Board has received a letter from the Saratoga County Planning Board issuing an advisory opinion "no significant County impact." The matter also requires approval by the Design Review Commission. PUBLIC HEARING: Mary Anne Macica, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on the application of Saratoga Hospital. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: At 7:09PM the public hearing is closed. Mary Anne Macica asked if there were any additional questions or comments from the Board. Bill Moore moved that in the matter of the Appeal of Saratoga Hospital, 211 Church Street, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866: from the building inspector's determination for the premises at 211 Church Street, identified as Tax Parcel Section 165.49, block 2 and lot 2, within the inside district of the City of Saratoga Springs. Whereas, the appellant has applied for an area variance for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for modification of Emergency Room signs, within the Saratoga Hospital Planned Unit Development. The variance request is for relief from the maximum size and height on vehicular directional sign and maximum size for building entrance sign. Public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on April 12 and 26th in the year 2010. Whereas, in consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following ruling and finding of fact that the requested area variances for the following relief or lesser dimensions, as described in the submitted plans and application be approved: ('itof Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes—Monday,February 22,Page 3 of 6 E;:; , ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1. MINUTE "`� is A '_ MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 7:00 P.M. •_ CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman;Adam McNeill, Secretary; Gary Hasbrouck; James Helicke; Susan Steer ABSENT: Skip Carlson STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Deputy City Attorney ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings,the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED APPLICATIONS: #2852 STARLING RESIDENTIAL EXPANSION, 134 Crescent Street, area variance to construct second-story Expansions to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-2 District. #2833 KIRBY BURNT HILLS REALTY, LLC NEW MULTI-FAMILIES,6-14 Kirby Road, area variance to demolish five existing four-unit residences, and construct two(2)twenty-seven (27) unituildings; seeking relief from the minimum lot size per dwelling unit, maximum principal building coverage and minimum 5arking requirements in the Urban Residential-2 District. #2774 COMPLEXIONS SIGN,268 Broadway, area variance to install wall signs/banners; seeking relief from the maximum number of wall signs, maximum extension from the building and to permit banner signs in the Transect-6 District. #2817.1 ADELPHI HOTEL EXPANSION, 19-23 Washington Street, area variance to construct a banquet facility, additional hotel rooms and renovate the existing stone mansion; seeking relief from the minimum frontage build out Requirement in the Transect-6 District. #2792 STONE BUILDINGS, 68 Weibel Avenue, area variance to maintain existing buildings; seeking relief from the build-to, minimum frontage build-out and minimum two-story requirement in the Transect-4 District. NEW BUSINESS: RECUSED Board member Susan Steer recused from this application. 1.#2554.1 KOVACHICK RESIDENCE, 184 Phila Street, area variance to construct a three-car garage with apartment above; seeking relief from the maximum number of principal structures on any one lot requirement in the Discussion ensued regarding the granting of the modification of the use variance. Bill Moore, Chairman stated this portion of Lake Avenue is in transition. The Chairman cited all the commercial uses on this roadway. This area is more commercial than residential at this time. We are considering this application as a modification of use variance. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:44 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Tom Roohan, Realtor stated he tried to sell the property. My family owns a home at 81 Lake Avenue. He is in support of leasing the property to this engineering firm. It is a unique building and a great use. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for October 19,2015. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Saratoga County Planning Board decision of July 16, 2015 stating "No significant County wide or Inter Community Impact". 7. #2848 SULLIVAN RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 95 Vista Drive, area variance to construct an addition to an Existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum rear yard setback requirement in the Water's Edge PUD. This action was heard at the September 14, 2015 meeting and adjourned. The public hearing was opened and remains open. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 9:46 P.M. James Helicke presented the following resolution. #2848 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Jim and Connie Sullivan 95 Vista Drive Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 95 Vista Drive in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 192.36-2-5 in the Outside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. City of Saratoga Spc'sngs-Zoning Board of Appeals—September 28,2015-Page 9 of 18 The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence in the Water's Edge PUD and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 14th and 28th days of September 2015. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following area variance for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK 25' 22' 3'OR 12% As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicants have demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicants. The benefit sought by the applicant is to add a sunroom to the back of the residence. The applicant evaluated the idea of a smaller addition, which would not provide comfortable living space.The applicant also was asked about the feasibility of a configuration that did not extend as much to the rear, but with the same amount of square footage. This was not possible due to the positioning of a window as well as landscaping to the right of the addition. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicants note that the addition would replace an existing deck, and there is no incremental effect on the neighboring residences from this project. The board further notes this is at the rear of the home and not visible to the neighborhood. Finally,the Homeowner's Association has provided its approval to this project. 3. The Board notes this requested setback variance, at 12%, is not substantial. 4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The Board notes that this PUD does not have permeability requirements;this property is noted as having 44% permeability. As noted above, this proposal is neither substantial nor visible from the street. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed addition, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 8. #2849 LICHTENBERGER SINGLE-FAMILY, 24 Diamond Street, area variance for demolition of an existing single family residence and construction of a new single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback, minimum side yard setback, minimum total side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. City of Saratoga Springs-Zoning Board of Appeals—September 28,2015-Page 10 of t8