HomeMy WebLinkAbout20250457 3 Second St Area Variance Application "HANDWRITTEN APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED" [FOR OFFICE USE]
TOGq
yc�ta sy,� CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS (Application#)
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY (Date received)
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866-2296
TEL: 518-587-3550 X2533
/M1coRPORAiCO www.sarafoga-springs.org '..
(Project Title)
APPLICATION FOR:
INTERPRETATION, USE VARIANCE, Check if PH Required
AREA VARIANCE AND/OR VARIANCE EXTENSION Staff Review
APPLICANT(S)g OWNER(S)fl(notapplicant) ATTORNEY/AGENT
Name Joyce Bouyea SD Atelier Architecture, LLC
3 Second Street 511 Broadway,2nd Floor
Address
Saratoga Springs,NY 12866 Saratoga Springs,NY 12866
Phone 518-583-1953 / / (518) 587-3385 /
sue@sdatelier.com
Email
Primary Contact Person: Applicant Owner QAttorney/Agent
*An applicant must be the property owner, lessee,or one with an option to lease or purchase the property in question.
Applicant's interest in the premises: ®Owner ❑ Lessee ❑ Under option to lease or purchase
PROPERTY INFORMATION '..
3 Second Street 165 28 1 16
I. Property Address/Location: Tax Parcel No.: - -
(for example: 165.52—9—37)
2. Date acquired by current owner: 3.Zoning District when purchased: '..
Single Family Residence UR-1
4. Present use of property: 5.Current Zoning District:
6. Has a previous ZBA application/appeal been filed for this property?
®Yes(when?i.n 9A _9001— For what?see attached weethic; )
❑ No minutes
7. Is property located within(check all that apply)?: ❑ Historic District ❑Architectural Review District
❑500'of a State Park,city boundary,or county/state highway?
8. Brief description of proposed action: Client would like to to construct a small sunroom(146 so at the rear of the existing
house.This will require a rear yard variance and approval for lot coverage for an additional 1.6%
9. Is there an active written violation for this parcel? ❑Yes ❑No
10. Has the work, use or occupancy to which this appeal relates already begun? ❑Yes Z No
11. Identify the type of appeal you are requesting(check all that apply):
❑ INTERPRETATION(p. 2) ❑VARIANCE EXTENSION(p.2) ❑USE VARIANCE(pp. 3-6) Ed AREA VARIANCE(pp. 6-7)
Revised 01/2021 '..
ZONING BOARD of APPEAL4APPL/GT1ov FORM PAGE 2
INTERPRETATION—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary):
I. Identify the section(s)of the Zoning Ordinance for which you are seeking an interpretation:
Lot Coverage and Rear Yard Setback
Section(s)
2. How do you request that this section be interpreted?
3. If interpretation is denied,do you wish to request alternative zoning relief? []Yes ONo '..
4. If the answer to#3 is"yes,"what alternative relief do you request?O Use Variance ❑Area Variance
EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary):
1. Date original variance was granted: 2. Type of variance granted? ❑Use O Area
3. Date original variance expired: '..
5. Explain why the extension is necessary.Why wasn't the original timeframe sufficient? '..
When requesting an extension of time for an existing variance,the applicant must prove that the circumstances upon which the original
variance was granted have not changed. Specifically demonstrate that there have been no significant changes on the site, in the
neighborhood,or within the circumstances upon which the original variance was granted: '.......
Revised 01/2021 '..
ZONING BOARD OFAPPFALSAPPVCAT1cw FORM PAGES
USE VARIANCE—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary):
A use variance is requested to permit the following: '..
For the Zoning Board to grant a request for a use variance,an applicant must prove that the zoning regulations create an unnecessary
hardship in relation to that property. In seeking a use variance,New York State law requires an applicant to prove all four of the following '...
"tests".
1. That the applicant cannot realize a reasonable financial return on initial investment for any currently permitted use on the property.
"Dollars¢s"proof must be submitted as evidence.The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return for the following
reasons:
A. Submit the following financial evidence relating to this property(attach additional evidence as needed):
1) Date of purchase: Purchase amount: $
2) Indicate dates and costs of any improvements made to property after purchase: L,
Date Improvement Cost
3)Annual maintenance expenses:$ 4)Annual taxes:$
5)Annual income generated from property:$
6)City assessed value: $ Equalization rate: Estimated Market Value:$
7)Appraised Value:$ Appraiser: Date:
Appraisal Assumptions: ',...
Revised 01/2021
ZONNGBDARD OFAPPEAts APPUGi T1cw FORM PAGE4
B. Has property been listed for sale with E]Yes If"yes", for how long?
the Multiple Listing Service(MLS)? [[]No '..
1)Original listing date(s): Original listing price:
If listing price was reduced,describe when and to what extent:
2)Has the property been advertised in the newspapers or other publications? QYes ❑No
If yes,describe frequency and name of publications:
3)Has the property had a"For Sale"sign posted on it? C1Yes ❑No '..
If yes, list dates when sign was posted:
4) How many times has the property been shown and with what results?
2. That the financial hardship relating to this property is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood. '..
Difficulties shared with numerous other properties in the same neighborhood or district would not satisfy this requirement. This ',...
previously identified financial hardship is unique for the following reasons:
Revised O1/2021
ZONING BOARD OFAPPE4LSAPPacAT1oN FORM PAGES
3. That the variance, if granted,will not alter the essential character of the nei hborhood. Changes that will alter the character of a '..
neighborhood or district would be at odds with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The requested variance will not alter the
character of the neighborhood for the following reasons:
4. That the alle¢ed hardship has not been self-created.An applicant(whether the property owner or one acting on behalf of the property
owner)cannot claim"unnecessary hardship"if that hardship was created by the applicant,or if the applicant acquired the property
knowing(or was in a position to know)the conditions for which the applicant is seeking relief.The hardship has not been self-created '..
for the following reasons:
Revised O1/2021
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALSAPPUGT/ON FORM PAGE6
AREA VARIANCE—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary):
The applicant requests relief from the following Zoning Ordinance article(s)
Dimensional Requirements District Requirement Requested
Percentage of lot Coverage 28% 32.3%
Rear Yard Setback 30' 24.5'
Other:
To grant an areavariance,the ZBA must balance the benefits to the applicant and the health,safety,and welfare of the neighborhood and
community,taking into consideration the following:
I. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other feasible means. Identify what alternatives to the variance have '..
been explored(alternative designs,attempts to purchase land,etc.)and why they are not feasible. '..
The hardship is due to the fact that the lot is already substandard by 2,481 sf.
There is no opportunity to purchase land. A UR-1 district requires a 12,500 sf lot and the lot only has 10,019 sf thus it is 8%less
than what is required.
There is no opportunity to purchase land or design an enclosed sunroom in an alternative location due to the site cwntraints.
2. Whether granting the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby '..
properties. Granting the variance will not create a detriment to nearby properties or an undesirable change in the neighborhood
character for the following reasons:
The proposed design will extend out in the rear yard and Is not visible from the street.
The proposed design is only 146 sf(162 sf including overhangs)would only increase the lot coverage by 1.6%.This is a very
minor expansion to a non-conforming substandard lot and will have minimal impact(if any)to the neighborhood or adjacent '..
properties.
There are other properties in the neighborhood that are also at 32%lot coverage.(see comparables) '.....
Revised 01/2021
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEAL9APPvcAT1om FORN PAGE
3. Whether the variance is substantial. The requested variance is not substantial for the following reasons:
The variance is not significant over what is existing(less than 1.6%)
This property had a zoning variance previously approved for the following back in 2001 for the following as outlined in the minutes.
Rear Yard Setback, Lot Coverage and Total Sideyard and Minimum sideyard.
4. Whether the variance will have adverse physical or environmental effects on neighborhood ordistrict. The requested variancewill not '..
have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district for the following reasons:
The proposed sunroom addition is small and minor in nature.
The overall design will blend in with the existing home in mass and scale and will not have any negative environmental effects
as it will not be visible and will not come any closer to the rear than the existing structure.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created(although this does not necessarily preclude the granting of an area variance).Explain
whether the alleged difficulty was or was not self-created:
The alleged difficulty is self-created because it is due needs of the client.
However,the pre-existing non-conforming lot is not self-created.
Revised 01/2021
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALSAPP(/GT1oN FORM PAGE 8
DISCLOSURE
Does any City officer,employee,or family member thereof have a financial interest(as defined by General Municipal Law Section 809)in
this application? m No OYes If"yes",a statement disclosing the name,residence and nature and extent of this interest must be filed
with this application.
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I/we, the property owner(s), or purchaser(s)/Iessee(s)under contract,of the land in question, hereby request an appearance before
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
By the signature(s)attached hereto, I/we certify that the information provided within this application and accompanying
documentation is,to the best of my/our knowledge,true and accurate. I/we further understand that intentionally providing false or '..
misleading information is grounds for immediate denial of this application.
Furthermore, I/we hereby authorize the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals and designated City staff to enter the property
associated with7thiiss application for purposes of conducting any necessary site inspections relating to this appeal.
x ,01
ti
� 1 Date:
(applicant signature) 61
Date:
(applicant signature) '..
If applicant is not the currently the owner of the property, the current owner must also sign.
Owner Signature: Date:
Owner Signature: Date:
Revised 01/2021
-
1.
>� I "
,y
i
�.4
S
1 • • • • . • • : • •
,y(
T, S� MIA,
e IF
r
x ow, F r �
r 13v�ate;.+�ris. �URI !x .s ,� Ao i� .r +P
a
"S �9 r .na
i
6io,
wow--,
HIM:
\iL , M
Properties with lot coverage above 28%
Information of lot sizes and area cover
taken from tax map reflecting their lot
size and inventory bldgs.
HOUSES WITH MORE THAN 28%BUILDING COVERAGE INSIDE 500 FT RADIUS
I
DISTRICT UR-1
Percentage occupied
lot square buildings Percentage with 3.8%overhang
Address tax map acres footage sq.ft. occupied added
136 State Street 165.28-1-13 0.21 9,147.60 2722.00 29.76% 33.56%+/-
16 Second Street 165.28-1-15 0.14 6,098.40 1795.00 29.43% 33.23%+/-
245 Wood lawn 165.28-1-4 1 0.291 12,632.401 3203.001 25.36% 29.16%+/-
139 State Street 152:1-12 1 0.391 16,988.401 4219.001 24.83% 28.63%+/-
142 State Street 165.28-1-18 1 0.291 12,632.401 3103.001 24.56%1 28.36%+/-
o
j +
®1 _ .:
T q4
DAT Zm.�' r E .Joyce Bouyea
ARCHITECTURE L,L,C 3 Second Street, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
Properties with lot coverage above 28% Information of lot sizes and area
cover taken • • • • reflecting
their lot size and inventory bldgs.
Ji
F Rim
142 State St
w f-
c y.
t m
D
AT
ARCHITECTUR 3 Second Street, Saratoga Springs, 12866
F )gJ1 Properties with lot coverage above 28% Information of lot sizes and area
cover taken from tax map reflecting
�,
rD r ?� f�Ai1��i o •• their • size . • inventorybldgs.
139 State St.—
sr ,
3rU St 2
o�
` 3 •, �y 2 ,ems. - _ ,�,•�;�:.cta�r�`�
/ � se°pad sr _ .l
a 136
m
11 Ave 11f SI _ 1p�
State
, M
e.LiE Joyce Bouyea
ARCHITECTUR 3 Second Street, Saratoga Springs, 12866
WINDOW 51ZE:
lu
OA -MARVIN 3'-O 30'X 4'-9 1/2" R.O. -MATGH
EXI5TINS7 --
I
-------------------------------
I I
I
I
I
I �
I
I /J I_ ■
11r//I II -► I
, r
I � I
I
EXI5TING SUNROOM
EATING 146 5P
AREA EXISTING J
;
e
III 6 on
III SLATE D1 ON ON
TILE O
10'-1 1/2" j
-- =Zzzf L�--------------------------------------
EX15T. ✓' 5PAGE UNDER
HOOD I/1 ' EAVES
I'J AREA NOT
EXISTING I I EXISTING r MEA5URED
I i I II I G
KITGEN LI IN BATHRM
ROOM SLAND
Ilr✓✓/„{{„I I
✓' ,/! ,- lT1ZLZLLI_TrLl�T1llT1ZLZLL7__ __-_-� �__ _-- -1 110
------------------
4-
jjq
1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 2 ROOF PLAN DATE:
S D ATELIER �-1 SCALE: 1 /4" = I'-0" DD31 50 LE: 1 /4" = 1'-0.. A P R I L 28, 2025
ARCHITECTURE LLc.
S11 Broadway,Second Floor.
Saratoga Springs,NY. 12866 ADDITION FOR WARNING SCALE: AS NOTED D D 1
THE ALTERATION OF THIS MATERIAL IN ANYWAY,UNLESS REVISIONS:ww.sd.58ier.co FIRST FLOOR AND ROOF PLANS www.sdatelier.com .JOYCE BOUYEA DONE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A COMPARABLE NEW
3 SECOND STREET YORK STATE CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL IS A VIOLATION OF
nfo@sdatelier.com THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW AND/OR
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORI< DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SET - NOT to be used for construction REGULATIONS AND IS A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR
2024-49
is document t the eas mccrpora erein as an ins—n c se ,is the property o -AKCH11LC,1UKt L.L.G.and canno a use or any o er purpose.
------------------------------ ------------------ -- -------
-- -I-�--
-�EuE]]�-
El F--ILJ I
\ Nk' -
I
� T I
FLA5HIN67�1 ,/ \` `\ ' -----``
I F
I I I I IIH__
�Lll-E
�ll--III / / \ �
----- -- -- -- --
tTi
12
I
I
1� 1� 1� f7+7�,L 11 1111111111H 11111HII
�L 6- T
I I
HE L1 111]
E_=MA I III 1 7
! !1==�ii�=��ii !LL
�!ii
LLE
IEE LLILI I Ell Il Q J] I �
L ELEU LLL------Il
T.O.EX15T. k T.O.EXI5T.
----- 1N FLOOR. ------ FIN.FLOOR.
EXI5TIN6 NEW ADDITION EXI5TIN6 EXI5TIN6 NEH ADDITION EXI5TIN57
1 WEST (REAR) ELEVATION 2 NORTH (SIDE) ELEVATION DATE:
SD ATELIER -1 SCALE: 1 /4' = I--O" - SCALE: 1 /4• = 1'-O" APRIL 28, 2025
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
511 Broadway,Second Floor.
Saratoga Springs,NY. 12866 ADDITION FOR WARNING SCALE: AS NOTED D D 2
THE ALTERATION OF THIS MATERIAL IN ANYWAY,UNLESS REVISIONS:ww.sd.58ier.co EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS www.sdatelier.com .JOYCE BOUYEA DONE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A COMPARABLE NEW
3 SECOND STREET YORK STATE CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL IS A VIOLATION OF
nfo@sdatelier.com THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW AND/OR
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORI< DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SET - NOT to be used for construction REGULATIONS AND IS A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR
2024-49
is document t the eas mccrporaIed herein as an ins rumen o se ,is the property o -AKCMIILCIUKL L.L.G.and canno a use or any o er purpose.
nf
William P/O'Connell n1f 4
L956 P 1 14 °o Leonard Muller
W and
Q Glenn Muller
n UR-I
w > L 939 P335 • MINIMUM LOT AREA REO'D- 12,500 5F
S60'02'52'E 100.00' _ (� O
EXI5TIN6 LOT AREA- 10,01q 5F
EXIST.LOT 15 50135TANDARD d PRE-EXISTING
0
I 12"ash
No
iQQ
YARIANGE I I 1 nl I m0�P I ZONING REQUIREMENTS-UR-I
6RANTED
2001 I 160 SF. I
PROPOSED I REQUIRED PROP05ED
/ ---5UNROOM--+----
-- -----i------------- 34-II
I PROPOSED I FRONT SETBACK 30' EXISTING TO REMAIN
o � I _ I •
N o I I I I 51DE SETBACK 12'-0"MIN.,30'TOTAL 34'-11"AND EXISTING
Q C)
W ^ I EX15T. I I I 12'-0"
REAR SETBACK 30'-0" 24'-b"
N '•_20'-O' T I� r MIN.SIDE
III
z (3�O � �
Lj I I I I YARD MAX.BUILDIN6 GOVERA6E 28 K 32 K
O o - 1 I O
J NJ I MAX. IMPERVIOU5 5URFAGE 50% 42%
I I %
Q 21 I I I
� I I
I � IO O �
I I
C: I I
o 1 I I c
0 .230 cc , ozQ
1 o
1 0LLLU I :o
I 0 1 N I ILr) c
1 anchor
pole
e—.. —l. ..—.. —. . — . . — . . — . . — . . — . . — ._+— .1 —. .
iN60'02'52"W 100.00'
16"mp1. 14"mpl. 51TE PLAN BA5ED ON SURVEY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY
curb ----------- ---------------- ------- THOMP50N/FLEMIN6 LAND SURVEYOR5,P.G.DATED q/26/2001.
TAX MAP#: 165.26-1-16,JOB#501-115.11
oa .
/ Second Street
DATE:
SDATELIER I ARGHITEGTURAL SITE PLAN APRIL. 28, 2025
ARCHITECTURE LLQ AS 1 scALE=: I" = 20'
S 1 1 Broadway,Second Floor.
SCALE: AS NOTED w ^ I
Saratoga Springs,NY. 12866 ADDITION FOR WARNING HJ
ph: .s atelier.co ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN THE ALTERATION DI E TON OF ACOMPAR ANYWAY,UNLESS REVISIONS:
www.sdatelier.com JOYCE BOUYEA DONE UNDER THE DIRECTIONOFACOMPARABLENEW
3 SECOND STREET YORK STATE CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL IS A VIOLATION OF
nfo@sdatelier.com THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW AND/OR
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK PROGRESS SET - NOT to be used for construction REGULATIONS AND IS A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR 2024-49
City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, January 24, 2001
t hat road was added per t he Planning Board's request. He said t hat wit hout t he road t he side
yard set back is 50 feet, however, since t he road was added it becomes anot her front yard set back
wit h a minimum 60 foot front yard set back. He said t his mist akewas his error in using t he wrong
map. He said at t his t ime is was economically unfeasible t o move or alt er t he building.
David Harper opened t he public hearing.
Scot t EJlswort h, 12 Beacon Hill Drive, began t o read a st at ement concerning his problems wit h t his
developer. He informed t he Board t hat his home does not meet code and he has not been able t o
obt ain a cert ificat e of occupancy. David Harper explained t hat t his Board has no purview over
t hose issues. He said t he Board would only list en t o comment s t hat he had concerning t he
applicant's applicat ion for a variance at 11 Beacon Hill Drive. David Harper asked if Scot t EJlswort h
had any issues wit h 11 Beacon Hill Drive. Scott Ellswort h said no.
There being no one else wishing t o speak, David Harper closed t he public hearing.
#18 51 BOUYEA, J OYCE & BOB (3 Second Street)
This is an applicat ion for an area variance t o const ruct a garage addit ion t o t he exist ing single
family residence building in an Urban Resident ial-1 dist rict. Appearing before the Board was Susan
Davis, architect and Bob Bouyea, applicant.
David Harper clarified that the applicant was requesting area variances for a rear yard setback
from 30 feet t o 5 feet;t of al side yard from 30 feet t o 19 feet; side yard set back from 12 feet t o
4 and lot coverage from 20 percent t o 28 percent. Susan Davis agreed.
Susan Davis said she had met wit h neighbors and also discussed t his project wit h some neighbors
via t he t elephone. She said t he present home has no garage and/or st orage space and t his
proposal will sat isfy bot h needs. She said t his is a t ight lot wit h t hat has a sever line easement
const raint in t he rear.
Susan Davis said t here is an exist ing seiner line in t he rear which runs along t he propert y line and
submitted a photographs (exhibits s#145) taken showing where t he line is located. She said Boyce
& Drake plumbing provided the location of the line. She said Geoff Bornemann, Cit y Planner,
explained that the Cit y requires five feet bet ween t he line and a st ruct ure and this proposal will be
5 12 feet t o t he overhang. David Harper asked if this sew line easement exist s by a written
easement or was it simply t here. Susan Davis said she was not sure. David Harper not ed t hat it
was apparent ly not recorded in any book or page.
Page 3 of 12
City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Susan Davis said it was t he applicants' intent to maintain or replant if necessary t he buffer
bet ween t he parcels. She said t here was some concern expressed by one of t he neighbors on t he
locat ion of t he Wndows in t hat addit ion. She said t hat issue was st ill under discussion wit h t he
applicant and t hey would cont inue t o be mindful of adjacent propert y owners. She said t hey were
st ill in t he designing st age, however, it was likely some of t he windows would be made smaller and
t here may not be any in t he rear of t he st ruct ure. She t hen showed a revised elevat ion showing
the change t o t he windows. She said the second floor oft his garage would be for storage use only.
Susan Davis informed Board members t hat if t his was a det ached st ruct ure,t hese variances would
not be required.
Bob Bouyea said the primary reason fort his application is for storage space. He said t he exist ing
home is const ruct ed on a concret e slab, t herefore, t here is lit t le st orage in t he home.
Cindy Hollowood asked if it was t he applicant s int ent t o have living quart ers on t he second floor
of t he garage. Bob Bouyea said no. Cindy Hollowood asked if t here was a requirement for t his
project t o appear before t he Design Review Commission. David Harper said no, however, not ed t hat
on occasion t he Board has made Design Review Commission reviewa condit ion. Cindy Hollowood
said she would like some assurance t hat t he second floor would not be used as an apart ment.
David Harper point ed out t hat t his dist rict is zoned as single family,t herefore,t hat request would
need t o come before t his Board. Cindy Hollowood asked about t he runoff (drainage) issue as not ed
in t he adjacent propert y owner's (Mr. Parillo) let t er. Susan Davis said Mr. Parillo's parcel is slight ly
higher t han t his lot, t herefore, t here would be no runoff ont o t hat parcel. Cindy Hollowood asked
about t he t rees bet ween t hese t wo parcels. Susan Davis said it was t heir int ent ion t o maint ain
t he exist ing hemlock, however, t hey would be replaced if need be. Cindy Hollowood asked if t he
applicant would be willing t o have a t ree buffer as a condit ion of t he variance. Bob Bouyea said yes.
St eve Markovit s asked if t his home at one t ime had a garage t hat was renovat ed t o be part of t he
living space. Bob Bouyea said yes. He said in 1994 he had informed t his Board t hat it was his
int ent ion t o come back at some point wit h t his request. St eve Markovit s clarified t hat if t his
building was detached, not all of the variances would be required. Bob Bouyea agreed. St eve
Markovit s asked why t he building needed t o be at t ached. Susan Davis said it was a convenience
issue of going from one st ruct ure t o anot her wit hout go out side.
Susan Davis said alt hough t he second st ory of t his garage implies more t han just st orage t he
building code would not allowt hat use. She said t here is simply not enough light vent ilat ion.
David Harper opened t he public hearing. Cindy Hollowood read int o t he record, in it s ent iret y, a
letter from VVlliam aConnell, 142 State Street, expressing his concerns and opposition to this
proposal. It was also not ed t hat a let t er from Frank J. Parillo, 215 Ballard Road, and adjacent
property owner was received.
Page 4 of 12
City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Frank Parillo said he did not oppose t his request but was simply concerned t hat if t he applicant
was t o sell t his parcel,what might t he fut ure homeowners do wit h t he parcel. He suggest ed t hat
t he Board place rest rict ions on t he variance t hat t he second floor is not t o be used for living space
or for a workshop.
Susan Davis said she had spoken to Wiliam O'Connell about his concerns. She then showed
pict ures of Wiliam OConnell's house. She said t his garage would not obst ruct his vi&Vns as much
as he believes it will. She said she had also worked wit h Frank Parillo and his concerns about t he
runoff and t he t ree line. She said it was not t he int ent of t he applicant t o obt ain t his variance for
a workshop and/or apart ment. David Harper asked if t he applicant would be willing t o accept t hose
rest rict ions on t he variance. Bob Bouyea said yes.
Bob Bouyea informed t he Board t hat he had given Wiliam O'Connell access t o his parcel t hrough
t he applicant's parcel for some clean up issues. He not ed t hat Wiliam Mnnell st ill has a pile of
rubbish in his yard from clean up work and was confused as t o why he might be concerned wit h t he
garage blocking his vievvwhen t here was a pile of rubbish in his own back yard. He said it was likely
t hat t he window locat ions/size would change t hrough t his design phase. He again said t his space
would not be used for living quarters.
David Harper asked if it would be a hardship t o go before t he Design Review Commission. Susan
Davis said she did not mind appearing before t he Design Review Commission but felt it was an
undue hardship.
Frank Parillo suggested that perhaps some language be added to the resolution that only
household it ems and cars be locat ed in t his building. He said he did not believe it was necessary for
t he applicant t o appear before t he Design Review Commission.
There being no one else wishing t o speak, David Harper closed t he public hearing.
#1843 GLASER, BARBARA (110 Spring Street)
This is an applicat ion for use and area variances t o ut ilize t he east ing building as follows,wit h one
on-sit e parking space: 1) a) business offices for non-profit organizat ions and meet ing space on t he
first floor; b) residence unit at t he rear, st orage in t he cent er area and at t is space, and an office
for t he owner on t he front/west wing on t he second level; 2) maint ain nine signs as t hey are
current ly placed on t he building; 3) maintain bot h buildings on t his premises as current ly located;
4) maint ain t he lot as current ly configured; and 5) weiver of Q on-sit e parking spaces. Appearing
before t he Board was Susan Davis, archit ect and Barbara Glaser, applicant.
Page 5 of 12