HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200179 Leonard Pool NOD Keith Kaplan, Chair
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair
5 'f ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Cheryl Grey
Matthew Gutch
Christopher Mills
CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY
•
SARATOGA SPRINGS,NEW YORK 12866 Suzanne Morris
.� .�.,
trv-
PH)518-587-3550 Fx)518-580-9480 Gage Simpson,
i'co `' WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG
Kathleen O Connor,alternate
'ORAT'E0
*ZOZOOZ 79
/N THE HA TTER OF THE APPEAL OF
Michael and Nicole Leonard
166 Lake Ave
Saratoga Springs NY 12866
from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 166 Lake Avenue in the City of
Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.53-2-5 on the Assessment Map of said City.
The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the
construction of a pool on the parcel of a single-family residence in a UR-3 District and public notice having been
duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 8"day of June 2020.
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 DIMENSIONAL PROPOSED RELIEF
REQUIREMENT REQUESTED
MAXIMUM ACCESSORY BUILDING 10% 13.4% 3.4% OR 34%
COVERAGE-TOTAL: RELIEF
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK- 8' 6.5' 1.5'OR 18.8%
POOL
As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons:
. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant.
The applicants indicated that alternative placements and sizes were contemplated, and the pool
dimensions have been reduced to lessen the degree of dimensional relief. The Board notes this size helps
to provide the desired functionality without encroaching further into the setbacks. Per the applicant, a
smaller pool was also considered, however it was not chosen due to functionality concerns. The Board
further notes that the side yard variance is driven partially by the narrow configuration of the lot, and the
placement of the existing garage.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in
neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The proposed pool is required to be
surrounded by fencing, which provides visual as well as safety buffering. Furthermore, the placement of
the pool in the rear portion of the parcel makes it less likely to be visually impactful from Lake Ave.
3. The Board finds these variances to be substantial. The Board notes the proposed accessory coverage for
the pool, associated equipment, and other accessory improvements of 13.4%, when combined with
current principal residence coverage of 26.8%, will slightly exceed the combined district coverage of
40%. See condition below. The Board finds that the side setback is not substantial.
4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or
district. The lot as shown in the application materials will still exceed permeability requirements.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed pool, but
this is not necessarily fatal to the application.
Condition: No further additions to the principal structure
Adopted by the following vote:
AYES: 6 (K. Kaplan, B. Gallagher, C. Grey, G. Simpson, C. Mills, M. Gutch)
NAYES: 0
Dated:June 8, 2020
This variance shall expire 18 months following the filing date of such decision unless the necessary building
permit has been issued and actual construction begun as per 240-8.5.1.
I hereby certify the above to be a full,true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Zoning Board
of Appeals of the City of Saratoga Springs on the date above mentioned, six members of the Board being
present.
SIGNATURE: 6/24/2020
CHAIR DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.