TOWN OF SARATOGA

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES

August 24, 2020

Chairman William Moreau called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the flag salute.

Chairman William Moreau welcomed everyone to the meeting and proceeded to review the Rules of the Board.

Zoning Clerk Linda McCabe called the roll: Chairman William Moreau – present, Clifford Hanehan – present, Thomas Carringi – absent, Christopher Benn – present, Steve Mehan - present, Mark Sullivan – absent, Alternate Member Mark Solan - present.

Also present: Zoning Officer Gil Albert, Attorney William Reynolds, Steve Sullivan, Sherry Van Horn, Matthew Huntington, Joe Urbanski, John Cashin, Richard Vale. (Sign-in sheet is on file in the Clerk’s office.)

Approval of Minutes: A motion was made by Christopher Benn, seconded by Steve Mehan, to accept the meeting minutes of July 27, 2020. Chairman William Moreau – aye, Clifford Hanehan - aye, Thomas Carringi - absent, Christopher Benn - aye, Steve Mehan - aye, Mark Sullivan – absent, Mark Solan - aye.

Carried 5 - 0

Approved

Revisit for Area Variance

Sherry Van Horn #20-04

573 Rt. 9P

Stillwater, NY 12170

S/B/L 206.6-2-16 Lake Residential

Location: 1191 Rt. 9P

Returning Applicant seeks reapproval for the identical variances granted upon her first appearance before the Board, August 26, 2019. She seeks a 6,000 sq. ft. lot area variance, a 26’ front set back variance and a 1’5” back set back variance in order to remove existing structure and future construction of a new house.

Chairman William Moreau asked Attorney William Reynolds to speak in regards to this application.

Attorney William Reynolds stated this is the second meeting the Board has had this year regarding the revisit of this application concerning property located at 1191 Rt. 9P. He noted the application was first before the Board in August, 2019 and the result of that meeting was the Board approved the requested variances. That decision was challenged with an Article 78, brought about by Richard Vale. A decision by Judge Nolan in February 2020, vacated the granting of the variance and remanded the matter to this Board for further consideration. The decision of Judge Nolan was not to rule on the merits of granting or denying the variance; his decision was to require the Board to fully consider all the evidence before them that set forth all its justification for granting the variances. His decision was to instruct the Board to provide a better or more thorough rationale for granting the variance, and to provide a thorough expression of such. The Board did reconsider this at last month’s meeting and will do so again tonight. The Board members have a record of all proceedings that have occurred concerning this application. Last month the applicant, Sherry Van Horn, gave a presentation to the Board. Mr. Vale and his attorney, Justin Grassi, also had an opportunity to address the Board. Mr. Grassi submitted information to the Board, last minute, prior to the opening of last month’s meeting and Sherry Van Horn had been asked to retrieve and submit a copy of the geo-technical report of the property that was completed last year, which has now done. The Board is not here to consider new evidence or anything received from the public. They are to consider the geo-technical report that was done on the property last year, which referenced the alleged difficulty with the environs of the property, as that was requested at the end of last month’s meeting. The Board members have also received photographs and other materials from the Applicant. Attorney William Reynolds said he advised the Board, as well as the Applicant, they are not to consider this new evidence. He added that a petition was also submitted to the Board and they are to disregard that as well. There was no public hearing on this last month, it was a revisit, not your typical application and there will be no public hearing this evening.

Chairman William Moreau thanked Attorney William Reynolds. He asked if there were any questions of the Board; seeing none, he stated they will go through the Summary of Area Variance Criteria Balancing Test: The Zoning Board of Appeals shall balance benefit to applicant with detriment to health, safety & welfare of the community:

Whether benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to applicant: Board Member Christopher Benn said there are no other means; there is no ability to purchase any land as the lake is right there, it is a pre-existing, non-conforming lot and there are many such lots along the Rt. 9P corridor and this Board has allowed many variances in the past to help improve others properties. Board Member Clifford Hanehan agreed, and added the lot has been existing since the 1920’s. Town Attorney William Reynolds said the geo-tech report that was submitted to the Board was quite clear regarding the concept of rehabbing or remodeling the existing structure. It says, and he quoted, “The existing house is in poor condition, showing signs of movement, as the property is probably sliding down toward the lake.” He added that accentuates the poor condition of the property and the feasibility of rehabbing versus new construction. The report speaks clearly to that. The Board Members agreed that there are no other means to the applicant.
Undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties: Chairman William Moreau commented along that easterly shore of the lake is a steep drop-off/cliff and there are several houses built on the cliff and some are of multi levels. You only see one level and not even the complete level, driving north and south along Rt. 9P, so there are several other residences there that are in the same situation as this and they stabilized their properties, so no, this is not an undesirable change or a detriment to nearby properties. Board Member Clifford Hanehan added he’s been in a boat on the lake and on that side of the lake feasibility has successfully been proven and some of those properties and homes are spectacular. It will not be undesirable, probably a desirable characteristic change to the neighborhood; Board Members agreed.
Whether request is substantial: Board Member Christopher Benn said yes, it is a substantial request, although the front setback even though it is considerable, is less than what is currently on the existing structure. So even though it is a substantial amount, it’s actually an improvement from the existing structure; he has no problem granting this. Board Member Steve Mehan stated concerning percentage of lot coverage, this is still below our threshold, so he is fine with this. Zoning Officer Gil Albert responded that is correct and Board Member Clifford Hanehan agreed, as did all members of the Board.
Whether request will have adverse physical or environmental effects: Board Member Steve Mehan stated judging by the geo-technical report, it says it can be done and if done correctly, judging by the other homes on the cliff, it proves it can be stabilized. Chairman William Moreau agreed, so the answer to this is no, as the cliff face and property can be stabilized. Board Members agreed.
Whether alleged difficulty is self-created (which is relevant, but not determinative): Board Member Clifford Hanehan said it sounds like he’s repeating himself, but as he said earlier, the lot has been existing since the 1920’s so it’s a pre-existing lot. Homeowners, landowners within our Town, have the right to do something with their properties if it’s feasible. So no, to self-created. Chairman William Moreau added also no due to the natural constraints of the lot; the Board agreed this was not self-created.

Chairman William Moreau noted the Area Variance Balancing Test was complete and as the Board found more benefit than detriment, he proposed and read the following resolution:

RESOLUTION APPROVING AREA VARIANCE – 1191 Route 9P

WHEREAS, Sherry Van Horn, hereinafter referred to as “Applicant”, by application dated April 24, 2020, seeks the reconsideration of an area variance for property at 1191 Route 9P in the Town of Saratoga, and

WHEREAS, the Applicant was granted an area variance for this property by decision of the Town of Saratoga Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter the “Board”), dated August 26, 2019, and

WHEREAS, the granting of the variance was vacated and the matter remanded to the Board by decision of Hon. Thomas D. Nolan, JSC, dated February 11, 2020 for further proceedings consistent with the aforesaid decision, and

WHEREAS, notice of this present meeting and an opportunity to be heard was provided to Richard Vale, and

WHEREAS, members of the Board have previously viewed the subject property, and

WHEREAS, members of the Board have been provided with and reviewed the entire prior written record of this application from August of 2019, and

WHEREAS, the Board has heard and considered both the prior and current oral presentations to the Board by the Applicant, and by Richard Vale, and

WHEREAS, the Board has received and considered a letter presentation from Attorney Justin Grassi on behalf of Richard Vale, and also received and considered a geo-technical report concerning the subject property, prepared by Gifford Engineering, preparation of which was referenced in the minutes of the August 2019 meeting, and

WHEREAS, the Board, in public session, has specifically considered and applied the ‘Balancing Test” of Section 267-b (3) (b), and

WHEREAS, following review and consideration of all of the above, and pursuant to Section 400-66 of the Town of Saratoga Zoning Law, the Board finds as follows:

1. The predominant use of property in this neighborhood is residential with many homes in close proximity to Route 9P and Saratoga Lake.

2. Applicant’s proposal moves the footprint of the residential structure to be built further from Saratoga Lake and further from Route 9P, thereby significantly improving the building envelope for the property.

3. A strict application of the area requirements for this pre-existing lot would deprive the Applicant of any viable plan for construction of a home.

4. There will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood from the granting of the variance.

5. The present structure is in serious disrepair, and its replacement, together with the proposed re-engineering of the bank along Saratoga Lake will have a positive effect on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood.

6. Applicant’s need for an area variance is not self-created but is rather due to the difficult natural character and dimensions of the lot.

IT IS NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVED that the application of Sherry Van Horn for an area variance, to the same extent as previously approved by the Board, is hereby confirmed and approved.

A motion was made by Board Member Christopher Benn, seconded by Board Member Steve Mehan, to pass this resolution and grant the variances pursuant to previously submitted updated information and compliance to zoning as presented.

Chairman William Moreau – aye, Clifford Hanehan - aye, Thomas Carringi - absent, Christopher Benn - aye, Steve Mehan - aye, Mark Sullivan – absent, Mark Solan – abstained, as he is a new member and unfamiliar with this application.

Carried 4 - 0

Public Hearing for Area Variance

Paula Keller #20-05 Representative: Matthew Huntington

55 Railroad Pl.

Saratoga Springs, NY 12866

S/B/L 156.-3-42.3 Rural District

Location: 168 Burgoyne Rd.

Applicant seeks to construct a 34’ x 25’ three-car garage, an 1100+/- square ft. second story addition, as well as a walk-out basement, to her existing non-conforming residence. The total addition is approximately 2900+/- square ft. The Applicant seeks a front set back variance of 32.11’ and a 33.77’ side setback variance to complete this project.

Matthew Huntington, Studio A, appeared on behalf of the Applicant, stating the existing house is built within the setback and they are in the middle of renovations. The owner wants to put an addition onto the house, she owns both parcels and she is not interested in a lot-line adjustment. They will use the current driveway as the topography slopes, so the location of the addition is the only logical place to build it.

Chairman William Moreau asked if there were any questions of the Board.

Christopher Benn commented that as she owns both parcels, moving the lot-line is the way to go. She has another way to do this without variances. She has frontage on the other lot that she can take 50’ from and add to this, which still leaves her with enough frontage on the other lot if she wishes to sell in future.

Clifford Hanehan asked if anyone from the Town has spoken with her.

Zoning Officer/Building Inspector Gil Albert said he spoke to them and told them it’s easy to do a lot-line adjustment, no variances needed and that is the way they should go, or merge the parcels. He is not an advocate for granting these requested variances.

Chairman William Moreau stated he went out to the property and agrees with Zoning Officer/ Building Inspector Gil Albert that a lot-line adjustment is needed. Even though it slopes, if you look to the east toward Schuylerville, there’s a crest in the road and it’ll improve sight-line if the driveway is moved away from that crown. There are alternatives aside from variances and they need to look at that.

Matthew Huntington stated the Applicant doesn’t want to do a lot-line. He then discussed the sight-line and moving the driveway and Chairman William Moreau stated the further away from the crown the better, as it’s safer.

Zoning Officer/Building Inspector Gil Albert commented he had the Highway Superintendent and the Planning Board Chairman look at this, and they agreed either a lot-line adjustment or merging the properties will be the best way to go. If they want to sell in future, the driveway has to be moved. Keep it simple and move it now.

Clifford Hanehan stated this would be setting a bad precedent, adding he agreed with Zoning Officer/Building Inspector Gil Albert and reiterated to keep it simple.

Attorney William Reynolds noted the well is on the other lot so they need to adjust the lot-line.

Zoning Officer/Building Inspector Gil Albert added they can take frontage, move it over and it’s done, without a variance.

Chairman William Moreau asked Matthew Huntington if they’d like to reconsider the application and advised him to talk with the Planning Board.

Matthew Huntington stated they will reconsider and thanked the Board.

Old Business: Chairman William Moreau stated that Clarence Fosdick has resigned after last month’s meeting. He thanks him for all his time, mapping he has done for the Town and he hopes he enjoys his retirement. Clifford Hanehan stated Clarence was a great addition to this Board and will be greatly missed.

Chairman William Moreau then introduced and welcomed Mark Solan to the Board as the Alternate Member.

New Business:

A motion was made by Clifford Hanehan, seconded by Steve Mehan, to adjourn the

meeting at 7:38 p.m. Chairman William Moreau – aye, Clifford Hanehan - aye, Thomas Carringi - absent, Christopher Benn - aye, Steve Mehan - aye, Mark Sullivan – absent, Mark Solan - aye.

Carried 5 - 0

Meeting Adjourned

The next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will be held September 28, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda McCabe

ZBA Clerk

~Meeting dates are subject to change~