HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200467 Skinner Single-Family Addition NOD r4 Keith Kaplan, Chair
Gallagher,CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
Brad Galla Vice Chair
Terrance Gallogly
5 'f ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Cheryl Grey
=�-� �:__� �' Matthew Gutch
CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY
,�' Christopher Mills
. `" ,.�� ,� SARATOGA SPRINGS,N EW YORK 12866
f � � ', Gage Simpson
�¢ PH)518-587-3550 Fx)518-580-9480 Kathleen O'Connor,alternate
R.'c WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG '
' RATE°
#20200467
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
ANDREW AND LINDA SKINNER
I I DUBLIN SQUARE LANE
SARATOGA SPRINGS NY 12866
from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 19 Andrews St. in the City of
Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.58-I-5 on the Assessment Map of said City.
The appellants having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the
construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence in a UR-2 District and public notice having been
duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 14th and 28th days 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 amounts of relief:
TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED
REQUIREMENT
MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' 6.3' 3.7' OR 37%RELIEF
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK(WEST) 8' 2' 6' OR 75%RELIEF
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK(EAST) 8' 6' 2' OR 25%RELIEF
MINIMUM TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK 20' 8' 12' OR 60%RELIEF
As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons:
I. The applicants have demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the
applicants. In the case of the west side setback, the Board notes the encroachment already exists on the
main residence and the addition on the west side extends the current line. On the east side, the
applicant has explored options including detaching the garage and moving to the rear, as well as
changing the floor plan to decreases the width of the addition.
The applicants note that detaching the garage and placing it in the rear adjacent to the alley, would
result in the loss of green space and the loss of accessibility for a handicapped member of the family.
The applicants further note that decreasing the width of the addition to avoid a variance on the east side
would result in a reduction of handicapped accessibility, as well as an adverse impact on natural light and
internal alignment of the addition with the existing portion of the residence.
2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in
neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicants note the consistency of the
front porch proposal with neighboring properties. On the side setbacks,the Board notes the application
materials show that the west portion of the addition - i.e. the proposed family room portion - is mainly
a one-story structure, and the east portion of the addition - the proposed garage and workshop - are
stepped back from Andrews St.
The Board finds these design choices reduce the impact of the mass and scale of the addition on the
neighborhood. Finally, the Board notes information provided by the applicants showing the consistency
of this proposed project with neighboring properties in terms of setback, size and height of residences.
3. The Board finds these variances to be substantial on a percentage basis; however, the substantiality is
mitigated by the fact that the addition on the west is an extension of the existing portion of the
residence, and the consistency of the proposed dimensions of the full project with the neighborhood as
noted above.
4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood
or district. The lot as shown in the application materials will still well exceed permeability requirements
of 25%.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicants desire to construct the proposed addition,
but this is not necessarily fatal to the application.
Adopted by the following vote:
AYES: 7 (K. Kaplan, B. Gallagher, T. Gallogly, C. Grey, M. Gutch, C. Mills, G. Simpson)
NAYES: 0
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.