HomeMy WebLinkAbout20180332 DeVall Subdivision NOD T4 Keith Kaplan, Chair
Gallagher,CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
Brad Galla Vice Chair
Terrance Gallogly
5 'f ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
cz) Cheryl Grey
CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY Matthew Gutch
Christopher Mills
SARATOGA SPRINGS,N EW YORK 12866
PH)518-587-3550 Fx)518-580-9480 Gage SimpsonKathleen O'Connor,alternate
c `' WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG '
' RAT'S 3
#20180332
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
RICHARD F. DEVALL AND DAVID F. DEVALL
59 FRANKLIN ST.
SARATOGA SPRINGS NY 12866
from the determination of the Building Inspector involving a parcel at 59 Franklin St/ II Cherry St. in the City of
Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 168.59-1-54, in an Urban Residential-4 district on the
Assessment Map of said City.
The appellants having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit a
subdivision to create two parcels, in which the currently existing improvements on the property are sited on
"Lot 1" consisting of 7,445 square feet fronted by both Franklin St and Cherry St, and with a new "Lot 2"
fronted by Marvin Alley and Cherry St consisting of 4,680 square feet, and public notice having been duly given
of a hearing on said application held on the 6th day of July through the 14th day of September 2020.
In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicants with detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the community, I move that the following area variances for the following amount of relief:
TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF
DIMENSIONAL REQUESTED
REQUIREMENT
MINIMUM AVERAGE LOT WIDTH: LOT 2 100' 58.1' 41.9'OR41.9%
MINIMUM SETBACK TO PARKING: FRONT LOT I 25' 11.5' 13.5'OR 54%
MINIMUM SETBACK TO PARKING:SIDE LOT I -W 20' 0' 20'OR 100%
MINIMUM SETBACK TO PARKING:SIDE LOT I -N 20' 0' 20'OR 100%
As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons:
I. The applicants have demonstrated these benefits cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the
applicants. The Board notes that the proposed lots' area each meet district requirements, and it is the
lot width dimension that requires relief for lot 2.
The applicants note that the existing lot shape and dimensions, plus the placement of the existing
building, dates back over 100 years. The Board notes the placement of the existing building is the cause
of the need for the parking areas of setback relief.
2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting these variances will not create an undesirable change in
neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicants note the location of the
property in a historic district and have provided documentary evidence to the Board that this parcel
was formerly two building lots. The Board notes the neighborhood context in the Franklin Square
neighborhood supports the density of two building lots as per this proposal. The Board further notes
that in the case of the parking setbacks,the relief is required to avoid the need for on street parking.
The applicants further provided the Board with information on comparable lots in the neighborhood,
making it clear that this new Lot 2 would be consistent with neighborhood context.
3. The Board notes that the lot width variance is substantial, however the substantiality of the lot width
variance is mitigated by the lack of adverse impact as noted above.
4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood
or district. Permeability of lot I, which has the existing improvements on the parcel, will be 42%, well
in excess of the UR-4 requirement of 15%. Lot 2 improvements will be evaluated separately and
subsequent to subdivision approval.
5. These areas of relief are self-created insofar as the applicants desire to subdivide this parcel, but that by
itself is not fatal to the application.
Note:
• City Planning Board favorable advisory opinion provide February 14, 2020.
• DRC favorable advisory opinion provided November 6, 2019.
Adopted by the following vote:
AYES: 5 (K. Kaplan, G. Simpson, C. Mills, C. Grey, T. Gallogly)
NAYES: 0
Dated: September 14, 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: 9/21/2020
CHAIR DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.