HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210254 Labate Area Variance NOD \1:0(r SrKeith KapIan, Chair
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Brad Gallagher, Chair
T' �1: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Terrance Gallogly
� ,r
t .;. Cheryl Grey
t CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY Matthew Gutch
Ga e Simpson
%y SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866 g p
°�poRar�n
518-587-3550 Emily Bergmann
WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG
#20210254
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
Julie Labate
60 Catherine Street.
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 60 Catherine St. in
the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.36-2-41 on the
Assessment Map of said City.
This being an application 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 19th day
of April and 10th day of May 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:
TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF
DIMENSIONAL REQUESTED
REQUIREMENT
MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL BUILDING LOT 30% 38.9% 8.9% OR 29.7%
COVERAGE RELIEF
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 notes that the benefit sought is for an
additional bedroom for a growing family, and further notes that this request is for a
residence that already exceeds maximum principal lot coverage, so any addition would
trigger the need for a variance.
The applicant also notes that the addition has been placed in the rear of the house,
which enables conforming setbacks to be maintained. The board also notes that a
portion of the existing deck will be removed to accommodate the addition.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an
undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. As
noted above, the addition is to the rear of the residence; the applicant notes that the
addition will not be visible from the street.
3. The Board finds the variance to be substantial on a percentage basis; however,
the substantiality is mitigated by the following facts: As noted above, the
addition is not expected to be visible from the street; the existing residence
already exceeds district requirements (as per the applicant, the existing principal
building is 37.4%) so the incremental relief sought is minor; and with the below
condition limiting accessory coverage, the total principal plus accessory lot
coverage will be limited to the district requirement of 40%.
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
exceed permeability requirements of 25%.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the
proposed addition, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application.
Condition: Accessory structures to be limited to 1 .1% of lot coverage.
It is so moved.
Dated: May 10, 2021
SIGNATURE:
05/11 /2021
CHAIR DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.