HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200573 Connors Single Family Addition NOD r4 Keith Kaplan, Chair
fGallagher,CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
Brad Galla Vice Chair
Terrance Gallogly
5 'f ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Cheryl Grey
A -
Matthew Gutch
CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY
'.': Christopher Mills
`" .�� ,� SARATOGA SPRINGS,NEW YORK 12866
`- f` _� � ', Gage Simpson
¢�� �-�. PH)5 18-587-3550 Fx)5 18-580-9480 Kathleen O'Connor,alternate
, Kathleen O'Connor,alternate
coWWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG '
RAT' 3
#20200573
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
JENNIFER CONNORS
87 LUDLOW STREET
SARATOGA SPRINGS NY 12866
from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 87 Ludlow Street in the City of
Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.53-2-52 on the Assessment Map of said City.
The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to seek a minor
modification of a previously granted area variance for the minimum front yard setback requirement in the
Urban Residential — 3 (UR-3) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application
held on the 28th day of September 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 10 FEET 7 FEET 3 FEET(30%)
As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons:
. The Board finds that the applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means
feasible to the applicant. The applicant stated the house is built on the pre-existing foundation and the
only option to correct the setback issue is "knocking down the house." The Board notes that this came
about from a minor discrepancy of less than a foot between the old and the new survey.
2. The Board finds that the applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an
undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant stated
that the house was built on the pre-existing footprint. Therefore, the Board finds that there is no
change from the prior conditions that were previously in existence in the neighborhood.
3. The Board finds this variance to be substantial. However, the Board notes the relief requested is
mitigated by its nature and its overall minimum impact on the neighboring properties. Again, the house
was built on the pre-existing footprint.
4. This Board finds this variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the
neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desired to construct a new addition to an
existing single-family residence, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application.
Adopted by the following vote:
AYES: 6 (K. Kaplan, B. Gallagher, M. Gutch, G. Simpson, C. Mills, T. Gallogly)
NAYES: I (C. Grey)
Dated: September 28, 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: 9/30/2020
CHAIR DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.