HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210257 Stefanik Area Variance NOD \1:0(r 1 Srp
Keith Kaplan, Chair
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair
. T' �1: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Terrance Gallogly
� ,r
t .;. Cheryl Grey
CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY Matthew Gutch
Ga e
%y SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866 Simpson
Gage
°�pOF.AT n
518-587-3550 Emily Bergmann
WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG
#20210257
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
Michael Stefanik
79 Monroe Street
Saratoga Springs NY 12866
from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 79 Monroe Street
in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 179.29-1 -22, in the UR-2
district 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 a single-family residence and public notice having been duly given
of a hearing on said application held on the 19th day of April through the 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 variances for the
following amounts of relief:
TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED
DIMENSIONAL
REQUIREMENT
MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL COVERAGE 30% 31% 1%OR 3.3%RELIEF
MIN. FRONT YARD SETBACK 10 4.5 FT 5.5 FT OR 55%
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. Per the applicant, the coverage requested is to allow for a
desired home with a front porch. The applicant provided alternative options for the
design of the house and porch, but they would result in less than ideal conditions.
Even without the requested front porch, a front yard setback variance would still be
needed for the front egress, which cannot be moved with current design.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting these variances will not create an
undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties.
The applicant noted the porch is 17.5ft from the street and provided neighborhood
context, demonstrating for the Board that there are numerous other houses with
similar front porches in the immediate area.
3. The Board notes the requested front yard variance is substantial, however the
substantiality of these variance is mitigated by the lack of adverse impact as noted
above. The Board also notes that the requested principal coverage variance is not
substantial.
4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on
the neighborhood or district. Applicant noted the design home allows for existing
trees to be kept and provides a positive president increasing the aesthetic value of
the neighborhood. Permeability will meet the district requirement.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant's desire to construct
the proposed single-family residence, but this is not necessarily fatal to the
application.
Conditions:
• Any future accessory structure is limited to 9%.
It is so moved.
Dated: May 10, 2021
SIGNATURE: 05/11 /2021
CHAIR DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.