Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200136 Barnes Pool House/Residence NOD Keith Kaplan, Chair f 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 1,): ,, Gage Simpson PH)518-587-3550 Fx)518-580-9480 , i'co `' WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG Kathleen O Connor,alternate 'ORAT'E0 #20200/36 /N THE HA TTER OF THE APPEAL OF Harold G. Barnes 495 Union Avenue Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 495 Union Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 180-3-25 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 demolition, removal and reconstruction of an existing detached pool house for an existing single-family residence in a Suburban Residential — I (SR-I) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 18th day of May through the 6th day of July, 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 Proposed Relief requested dimensional requirement Maximum Number of Principal Buildings I 2 100% As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: I. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Per the applicant,the existing pool house structure is in disrepair and in need of reconstruction. The applicant has considered other alternatives, including the subdivision of his 2.66 acre lot, which would not be a feasible solution as it would reduce privacy, increase density and create a key- hole lot. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant notes that the existing structure is not in usable condition, and has demonstrated that other properties in this area include comparably sized secondary dwelling units. Furthermore, the new structure will be obscured from view from the road due to the elevation change and the large number of trees. By removing the deteriorating pool house and replacing it with a new, second principal structure that is similar in footprint to the existing pool house and even further from the adjacent property line,there will not be any meaningful change in the neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The Board notes that no other variances are required for the new pool house/residence. 3. The Board notes that the requested variance for a second principal structure is substantial at 100%, however the impact of the substantiality is mitigated by the combination of neighborhood context, the size of the lot and the comparable size and location of the existing pool house. 4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. As previously indicated, there are several existing properties within the neighborhood that include a structure of a similar size and function. In addition, as per the applicant the demolition of the existing pool house and construction of the new pool house will serve to bring the structure into compliance with current building codes. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed second principal residence, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. As noted above,the applicant considered subdividing the lot, and the improvement in appearance and functionality of the structure and property will provide an overall benefit to the applicants and the neighborhood,thus outweighing the self-created nature of the variance. Condition: No subdivision of the lot. Adopted by the following vote: AYES: 4 (K. Kaplan, B. Gallagher, G. Simpson, K. O'Conner) NAYES: I (C. Grey) Dated:July 6, 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, five members of the Board being present. SIGNATURE: 7/30/2020 CHAIR DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.