Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210095 Hogan 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 Gage Simpson S ARATOGA S PRINGS, N EW Y ORK 12866 Kathleen O’Connor, alternate 518-587-3550 WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG #20210095 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Michael Hogan 8 Washington Pl Apt 1 Troy NY 12180 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 11 Persimmon Place in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.82-1-79 on the Assessment Map of said City. This being the subject of an application for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the construction of a single-family residence in an Urban Residential-2 District and public notice having been ndth duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 22 day of February and the 8 day of March, 2021. 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 amounts of relief: T YPE OF R EQUIREMENT D ISTRICT P ROPOSED R ELIEF DIMENSIONAL REQUESTED REQUIREMENT M AXIMUM P RINCIPAL B UILDING C OVERAGE 30% 39.2% 9.2% OR 30.7% RELIEF T OTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK 20’ 16.1’ 3.9’ OR 19.5% 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. Per the applicant’s representative, in order to stay within 30% coverage and still have an attached garage, the plan would require shrinking the garage and foregoing significant storage space, while also reducing the size of the mud room closet, the front porch, and second floor left bedroom. The applicant notes that this would reduce the functionality of the home and result in the need for accessory storage structure. They further note the applicant’s goal for green space in the backyard; keeping the garage and storage space within the main house meets the applicant’s needs. Finally, the applicant notes the need for the prospective homeowner to have a home office over the garage area; if the garage was detached, there would be a request for an added variance for finished space in an accessory structure. The Board notes that if the garage was detached, about 582 or so square feet would be removed from this proposal, making it almost comply. However, that would leave 10% of lot coverage available for accessory structures; the result would be the same total coverage, simply split between principal and accessory structures. Looking at the proposal holistically, the condition imposed below to not have accessory structures beyond 0.8% (about 52SF) leaves the property with the same coverage in total if the garage had been detached. The applicant also noted the lack of feasible alternative to the placement of the window well, which was the trigger for the total side yard setback relief request. The placement of the window well is noted as necessitated by code as well as the sole source of natural light for the room in question. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant has provided information on nearby lots and their coverage ratios. The Board notes that this lot is at the higher end of the range in the area. However, the Board also notes the fact that the garage area is attached, and therefore part of the principal building calculation and part of the need for relief in this case. This, along with the condition imposed below on accessory coverage, supports the reasonableness of the applicant’s request for relief, in terms of neighborhood character and context. The Board does not find the window well to be visually impactful. 3. The Board notes the requested coverage variance, at 30.7%, is substantial, however the impact of the substantiality is mitigated by the combination of neighborhood context cited above, and the limitation to be placed on future accessory structures as per the condition below. The Board does not find the total side setback variance to be substantial. 4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The application shows greater than required 25% permeability, and total lot coverage will still be within district requirements. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed residence, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: Any future accessory structure is limited to 0.8% lot coverage- approximately 52 SF. It is so moved. Dated: March 8, 2021 Adopted by the following vote: AYES: 5 (K. Kaplan, T. Gallogly, M. Gutch, G. Simpson, C. Grey) NAYES: 0 RECUSED: 1 (B. Gallagher) Dated: March 08, 2021 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: _______________________________ 03/12/2021 C HAIR D ATE R ECEIVED BY A CCOUNTS D EPT.