Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200713 Souther New Single-Family NOD Keith Kaplan, Chair C ITY OF S ARATOGA S PRINGS Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair Terrance Gallogly ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Cheryl Grey  Matthew Gutch C ITY H ALL - 474 B ROADWAY Christopher Mills S ARATOGA S PRINGS, N EW Y ORK 12866 Gage Simpson PH) 518-587-3550 FX) 518-580-9480 Kathleen O’Connor, alternate WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG #20200713 I N THE M ATTER OF THE APPEAL OF M IKE & K IM S OUTHERN 124 Y ORK A VENUE S ARATOGA S PRINGS NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 131 Middle Ave in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.46-3-5.2 on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the construction of a new single-family residence, patio, and a two-car garage in a UR-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 9th day of November and the 14th day of December 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 variances for the following amount of relief: T YPE OF R EQUIREMENT D ISTRICT D IMENSIONAL P ROPOSED R ELIEF R EQUESTED R EQUIREMENT M INIMUM S ETBACK FOR P ATIO 10’ 4.9’ 5.1’ (51%) M AXIMUM C OVERAGE FOR A CCESSORY 10% 12% 2% (20%) S TRUCTURES M INIMUM F RONT Y ARD S ETBACK 8.2’ (M ODIFIED 5.3’ 2.9’ OR 35.4% A VERAGE) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. With respect to the proposed patio, according to the applicant, the narrow width of the property necessitates the patio be aligned with the west side of the proposed principal structure, in order to allow the patio to be of adequate size and function. With respect to the proposed garage, according to the applicant, the garage has been designed to be as small as possible to accommodate two cars and, as a result, it is not feasible to build an interior staircase to reach the storage area above the garage. Therefore, the applicant intends to build an exterior staircase for the garage, which in turn will result in the garage exceeding the allowed coverage area for an accessory structure. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting these variances will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. With respect to the proposed patio, it will align with the west side of the proposed principal structure and, as such, it will not impose on the adjacent property any more significantly than the proposed principal structure. In addition, the applicants intend to place shrubbery or some other form of vegetation between the patio and the adjacent property, which will allow for additional privacy. With respect to the proposed garage, it will be located at the rear of the property behind the larger proposed principal structure and, as such, it will be almost “imperceptible” from the street. In addition, the exterior staircase to the garage will be located toward the interior to the lot and, therefore, will not impose on the adjacent property. The permitted front setback has been reduced to 8.2’ using the average of the adjacent parcels as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. This modified setback is consistent with neighboring properties. 3. The Board notes the requested variances of 51%, 35.4%, and 20% are substantial. However, the Board notes that the relief requested is mitigated by its nature and its overall minimum impact on the neighboring properties, as discussed above. Substantiality of the front setback is mitigated by the consistency with neighboring properties. 4. These variances will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. Permeability requirements will meet district requirements. 5. The alleged difficulty is considered self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the patio and the garage. However, this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Adopted by the following vote: AYES: 7 (K. Kaplan, B. Gallagher, C. Grey, T. Gallogly, M. Gutch, C. Mills, G. Simpson) NAYES: 0 Dated: December 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, seven members of the Board being present. S IGNATURE: _______________________________ 12/16/2020 C HAIR D ATE R ECEIVED BY A CCOUNTS D EPT.