Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200239 Cioni Porch NOD (2) T4Keith 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 Gage Simpson 7 'moi ' '' . PH)518-587-3550 Fx)518-580-9480 Kathleen O'Connor,alternate /4, p7e_ co WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG DRAT' 3 #20200239 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Tricia Cioni 138 Washington Street Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 138 Washington Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.66-I-14 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 reconstruction of an existing 7ft by I5ft porch in an Urban Residential — 3 (UR-3) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 8th day of June through the 3rd day of August, 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 REQUESTED REQUIREMENT MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK I 0 FT 0 FT I 0 FT OR 100% MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL BUILDING 30% 66.1% 36.1% COVERAGE 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, non-conforming porch was damaged by an unintentional act of a third party, and the applicant is merely seeking to restore, rebuild and repair the porch to its original dimensions and use. The applicant further notes that there is no available property to purchase, such that this benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting these variances will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant seeks to restore a porch that has been in existence for more than 50 years. The applicant notes that the existing structure is not in usable condition due to the unintentional act of a third party, and has demonstrated that other properties in this area include comparably sized and located porches. The applicant notes that the existing porch fits with the character and neighborhood, and has been in existence in its current location for more than 50 years. By removing the compromised porch and replacing it with a new porch that is similar in footprint to the existing porch, there will not be any meaningful change in the neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. 3. The Board notes that the requested variances are substantial, however the impact of the substantiality is mitigated by the combination of neighborhood context and the fact that this porch had been in existence in its current location for more than 50 years prior to the unintentional destruction by a third party. 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 porch of a similar size and location. As the applicant seeks to restore the porch that has existed for more than 50 years, there will be no physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant could not establish that the porch was a lawful, pre-existing non-conforming part of the structure, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. As noted above, the applicant is requesting these variances to reconstruct a porch which was damaged by the unintentional act of a third party. Condition: Any significant reconstruction of this porch would nullify this variance. This would not apply to repairs for normal wear and tear. Adopted by the following vote: AYES: 6 (K. Kaplan, B. Gallagher, G. Simpson, C. Mills, M. Gutch, K. O'Conner) NAYES: I (C. Grey) Dated:August 3, 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, seven members of the Board being present. SIGNATURE: 8/05/2020 CHAIR DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.