Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200121 Bardsley Garage NOD T 4 CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Keith Kaplan, Chair 1>, 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 .� .', Gage Simpson ge_' PH)518-587-3550 Fx)518-580-9480 ' `' WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG Kathleen O'Connor,alternate 'ORATED *2OZOO1,21 /N THE HA TTER OF THE APPEAL OF Stephen and Lynn Bardsley 7 Iroquois Drive Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 7 Iroquois Dr. in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.14-3-66, 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 single-family residence on existing lot, in UR-I District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 8t"day of June 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 MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK 30' 21.5' 8.5'OR 28.3% MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK I2' 9.5' 2.5'OR2I% TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK 30' 27.2' 2.8'OR 9.3% MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL BUILDING COVERAGE 20% 25% 5%OR 25% 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 applicant noted that there is no available land for purchase along the property. Alternative designs were contemplated, but they would result in less than ideal conditions, as it would not provide enough space or functionality. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The Board concludes that the front yard setback of the proposed addition appears consistent with neighboring properties. 3. The Board finds the variances in total are substantial on a percentage basis as referenced in the table; however, the addition to be built is mitigated by its nature and its overall minimum impact on the neighboring properties. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. There is no impact to site permeable per the submitted site plan. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct a new addition for making the property more desirable to the applicant, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: Further accessory buildings limited to a cumulative maximum of 3% lot area. Adopted by the following vote: AYES: 4 (K. Kaplan, B. Gallagher, C. Grey, K. O'Conner) NAYES: I (G. Simpson) 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.