HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210134 Riley Accessory Structure 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
Emily Bergmann
518-587-3550
WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG
20210134
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
Stephen and Shelley Riley
24 Ruggles Road
Saratoga Springs NY 12866
from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 24 Ruggles Road in the City
of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 167.00-1-18.1 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 an accessory structure with finished space in the Rural Residential (RR) District and
public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on March 9, 2021 and March
29, 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 variance for the following amount of relief:
T YPE OF R EQUIREMENT D ISTRICT P ROPOSED R ELIEF
DIMENSIONAL REQUESTED
REQUIREMENT
M IN. F RONT Y ARD S ETBACK FOR 60 FT. 50 FT. 10 FT. (16.7%)
A CCESSORY S TRUCTURE
F INISHED S PACE IN A CCESSORY N OT P ERMITTED P ERMITTED 100%
S TRUCTURE
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. The applicant wants to construct a 10 x 14 ft. finished shed that can be used as an office and/or
creative space and that is fully removed from the principal structure on the property. The applicant has
noted that having a dedicated space separate from the principal structure would be most conducive for
their work and creative endeavors. According to the applicant, despite the large size of the property, the
proposed location of the shed is the only feasible location on the property because of the challenging
topography and terrain of the property. The applicant notes that other potential locations on the property
would require the shed to be built on a slope or would cause the path to the shed to be difficult to traverse.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting these variances will not create an undesirable change in
the neighborhood character or detriment to neighboring properties. According to the applicant, the shed
will be located at the top of a ridgeline above nearest street and will be surrounded by a significant
amount of trees and other shrubbery, such that the shed will be “imperceptible” from the street and the
neighboring properties.
3. The Board notes that the requested variance of 100% for the finished accessory structure is 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. The Board also notes that the variance of
16.7% for front yard setback relief is not significant.
4. The applicant has demonstrated these variances will not have a significant adverse physical or
environmental effect on the neighborhood or the district. Permeability will meet the district requirement.
5. The difficulty may be considered self-created insofar as the applicant desires to build a shed with
finished space, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application.
Condition: No sleeping, cooking or bathing facilities may be constructed in the proposed shed.
It is so moved.
Dated: April 19, 2021
S IGNATURE: _______________________________ 04/20/2021
C HAIR D ATE R ECEIVED BY A CCOUNTS D EPT.