HomeMy WebLinkAbout20180029 2776.2 Guarino2Family_21ParkPlace_app_RedactedName
CITY OF S TOGA SPRINGS
.o.
City
1-1ad1, - 474 13roaotwv.y
Sa.rc4crgo- Seri cagy, New-York,12.866
TI;{.4 528-587-5550 flu. 518-580-9480
APPLICATION FOR:
APPEAL TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR AN
INTERPRETATION, USE VARIANCE, AREA VARIANCE AND/OR VARIANCE EXTENSION
fFOR OFFICE USEI
(Application #)
(Date received)
APPLICANT(S)*
David Guarino & Linda Haner
21 Park Place
Address
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
Phone
Email
OWNERS) (/f not applicant) ATTORNEY/AGENT
An applicant must be the property owner, lessee, or one with an option to lease or purchase the property in question.
Applicant's interest in the premises: m Owner 0 Lessee 0 Under option to lease or purchase
PROPERTY INFORMATION
21 Park Place 165 84 1 1
I. Property Address/Location: Tax Parcel No.:
(for example: /65.52 - 4 - 37)
11/9/98 UR -4
2. Date acquired by current owner: 3. Zoning District when purchased:
3 unit residential UR -4
4. Present use of property: 5. Current Zoning District:
6. Has a previous ZBA application/appeal been filed for this property?
0 Yes (when? 12/29/14 For what? area variance )
0 No
7. Is property located within (check all that apply)?: 0 Historic District 0 Architectural Review District
0 500' of a State Park, city boundary, or county/state highway?
8. Brief description of proposed action:
To construct two (2) additional residential structures on the property so that there are a total of seven (7) units on the parcel.
The proposal includes one free-standing garage.
9. Is there a written violation for this parcel that is not the subject of this application? 0 Yes [T! No
10. Has the work, use or occupancy to which this appeal relates already begun? 0 Yes No
11. Identify the type of appeal you are requesting (check all that apply)
0 INTERPRETATION (p. 2) ® VARIANCE EXTENSION (p. 2) 0 USE VARIANCE (pp. 3-6) 0 AREA VARIANCE (pp. 6-7)
Revised 12/2015
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALSAPPLICATION FORM PAGE 2
FEES: Make checks payable to the "Commissioner of Finance". Fees are cumulative and required for each request below.
0 Interpretation
0 Use variance
0 Area variance
-Residential use/property:
-Non-residential use/property:
0 Extensions:
$ 400
$1,000
$ 150
$ 500
$ 150
INTERPRETATION — PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING (add additional information as necessary):
I. Identify the section(s) of the Zoning Ordinance for which you are seeking an interpretation:
Section(s)
2. How do you request that this section be interpreted?
3. If interpretation is denied, do you wish to request alternative zoning relief? E] 'es ❑No
4. If the answer to #3 is "yes," what alternative relief do you request?0 Use Variance 0 Area Variance
EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE — PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING (add additional information as necessary):
12/29/14
I . Date original variance was granted: 2. Type of variance granted? 0 Use 0 Area
6/29/16, 12/29/17 (ext)
3. Date original variance expired:
5. Explain why the extension is necessary. Why wasn't the original timeframe sufficient?
Original application design not approved by Planning Board, application pending.
When requesting an extension of time for an existing variance, the applicant must prove that the circumstances upon which the original
variance was granted have not changed. Specifically demonstrate that there have been no significant changes on the site, in the
neighborhood, or within the circumstances upon which the original variance was granted:
There have been no changes to the neighborhood or the site since the original variance was granted. Circumstances are the same as
well.
Revised 12/2015
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALSAPPLICAT/ON FORM
PAGE.3
USE VARIANCE— PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING (add additional information as necessary):
A use variance is requested to permit the following:
For the Zoning Board to grant a request for a use variance, an applicant must prove that the zoning regulations create an unnecessary
hardship in relation to that property. In seeking a use variance, New York State law requires an applicant to prove all four of the following
"tests".
I . That the applicant cannot realize a reasonable financial return on initial investment for any currently permitted use on the property.
"Dollars & cents" proof must be submitted as evidence. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return for the following
reasons:
A. Submit the following financial evidence relating to this property (attach additional evidence as needed):
I) Date of purchase: Purchase amount: $
2) Indicate dates and costs of any improvements made to property after purchase:
Date Improvement
Cost
3) Annual maintenance expenses: $ 4) Annual taxes: $
5) Annual income generated from property: $
6) City assessed value: $ Equalization rate: Estimated Market Value: $
7) Appraised Value: $ Appraiser: Date:
Appraisal Assumptions:
Revised 12/2015
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE 4
B. Has property been listed for sale with
the Multiple Listing Service (MLS)?
IJYes If "yes", for how long?
EDNo
1) Original listing date(s): Original listing price: $
If listing price was reduced, describe when and to what extent:
2) Has the property been advertised in the newspapers or other publications? ❑Yes DNo
If yes, describe frequency and name of publications:
3) Has the property had a "For Sale" sign posted on it? DYes D No
If yes, list dates when sign was posted:
4) How many times has the property been shown and with what results?
2. That the financial hardship relating to this property is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood.
Difficulties shared with numerous other properties in the same neighborhood or district would not satisfy this requirement. This
previously identified financial hardship is unique for the following reasons:
Revised 12/2015
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALSAPPLICATION FORM PAGE 5
3. That the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Changes that will alter the character of a
neighborhood or district would be at odds with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The requested variance will not alter the
character of the neighborhood for the following reasons:
4. That the alleged hardship has not been self-created. An applicant (whether the property owner or one acting on behalf of the property
owner) cannot claim "unnecessary hardship" if that hardship was created by the applicant, or if the applicant acquired the property
knowing (or was in a position to know) the conditions for which the applicant is seeking relief. The hardship has not been self-created
for the following reasons:
Revised 12/2015
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE 6
AREA VARIANCg— PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING (add additional information as necessary):
The applicant requests relief from the following Zoning Ordinance article(s)
Dimensional Requirements From To
Other:
To grant an area variance, the ZBA must balance the benefits to the applicant and the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and
community, taking into consideration the following:
I . Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other feasible means. Identify what alternatives to the variance have
been explored (alternative designs, attempts to purchase land, etc.) and why they are not feasible.
2. Whether granting the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby
properties. Granting the variance will not create a detriment to nearby properties or an undesirable change in the neighborhood
character for the following reasons:
Revised 12/2015
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FORM
PAGE 7
3. Whether the variance is substantial. The requested variance is not substantial for the following reasons:
4. Whether the variance will have adverse physical or environmental effects on neighborhood or district. The requested variance will not
have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district for the following reasons:
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created (although this does not necessarily preclude the granting of an area variance). Explain
whether the alleged difficulty was or was not self-created:
Revised 12/2015
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALSAPPLICAT/ON FORM
PAGE 8
DISCLOSURE
Does any City officer, employee, or family member thereof have a financial interest (as defined by General Municipal Law Section 809) in
this application? ® No 0 Yes If "yes", a statement disclosing the name, residence and nature and extent of this interest must be filed
with this application.
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I/we, the property owner(s), or purchasers)/lessee(s) under contract, of the land in question, hereby request an appearance before
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
By the signature(s) attached hereto, I/we certify that the information provided within this application and accompanying
documentation is, to the best of my/our knowledge, true and accurate. I/we further understand that intentionally providing false or
misleading information is grounds for immediate denial of this application.
Furthermore, I/we hereby authorize the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals and designated City staff to enter the property
associated withtqiis a plication for purposes of conducting any necessary site inspections relating to this appeal.
L
applica t signature)
1
Date: ' 17
(Z - Zv l
Date:
(applicant signature)
If applicant is not the currently the owner of the property, the current owner must also sign.
Owner Signature: Date:
Owner Signature: Date:
Revised 12/2015
CITY OF SARATOGA K�P����/��
�.~...`,�
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY HALL - 474 BROADWAY
SAnAronASPRINGS, NEW YORK 1 2866
PH) 518-587-3550 p*5l8-58O-948O
wwv*.s:nArocx-srmwcs.oxo
#2778./
/A/ 77-/E MATTER OF 7-1-/E APPLIGA770A1 OF
David Guarino and Linda Haner
21 Park Place
Saratoga Springs, New York l7866
Bill Moore
Chair
Keith B. Kaplan
Vice Chair
Adam McNeill
Secretary
Gary Hasbrouck
_James He|ickv
Susan Steer
Cheryl Grey
�C;EIVED
NAR 5
ZO/7
ACCOUNTS ~='^R/MENT
Based on submitted evidence that the application for an extension of a granted area variance does
riot differ from the original application and approval due to the fact that the application is pending
before the Planning Dnard, and that there have been no significant changes in the condition of the
property or neighborhood warranting othewvise, the board moves that the application of David
Guarino and Linda Haner for the premises at 21 Park Place in the City of Saratoga Sphngs, and
identified astax parcel #l55.84 -l-1 originally granted on December 1 5, 2014 for construction of
two two-family residences in an Urban Residential- 4 District be approved, and that the variance
approval be extended for 18 months from the date that such resolution would have expired, June
29, 2015. with the new expiration date to be December 29, 201 7. The variance shall expire on
December Z9.ZOl7unless the necessary building permit has been issued and actual construction
begun as per the Zoning Ondinance, or otherwise further extended.
Adopted by the following vote:
AYES: 4 (O. Moore, K. Kao|an, A. McNeill, J. Helicke)
NAVES: 0
ABSTAIN: 1 (C. Grey)
RECUSE: 1 (S. Steer)
Dated: March 13, 2017
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.
3/15/2017
Date Chair
| hereby certify the above to be a fuU, 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, six
�~lT��� ��2� ���>hJ���
CITY OF^�'^'�^'�~~�'^^�''�'^�^�
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
.
CITY HALL -474BROADWAY
SAxATocA SPRINGS, NEW YORK lZ88h
PH) 518-587-3550 m)5/8 -560-948O
wwW.u`xAToc*'spmwcS.onc
RECORD OF DEcIsIoN
ZBA MEETING
MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2017
Six MEMBERS PRESENT — G. HASBROUCK ABSENT
Chair
Bill Moore, Chair
Keith B. Kap|an, Vice
Adam McNeiII, Secretary
Gary Hasbrouck
]amesHdicke
Susan Steer
Cheryl Grey
Oksana Ludd, alternate
�RECEIVED
MAR \5?A\7
ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT
1. #277G.1GUAR|N[VHANEREXTENSION, 21 Park Pace, area variance extension for construction
of two (2) two-family residences; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback and
maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential — 3 District.
Action: Pub|icheahngopenedando|oaed;modontoappnove—peaaod4'O'1(Greyabstoin)'
1(Steer recused).
2. #2948 PERRY CARRIAGE HOUSE, 173 Phila Street, area variance for additions to an existing
carriage house: seeking relief from the minimum side and rear yard setback requirements in
the Urban Residential —3District.
Action: Public hearing opened and remains open; application adjourned to Mar. 27.
3. #2949 PASTECKI RESIDENCE, 12 Schuyler Drive, area variance for an addition to an existing
single-family residence; seeking reflef from the minimum side yard and total side yard setbacks
and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential — 1 District.
Action: Public hearing opened and remains open; application adjourned to Mar. 27.
4. #2926TspPEn/LANE RESIDENCE, 144 Spring Street, area variance for a front porch addition to
an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard and side yard
setback requirements in the Urban Residence — 3 District.
Action: Public hearing closed: motion to approve — passed 6-0,
5. #2947 POWER RESIDENCE, 84 Walworth Street, area variance for a rear deck and stair addition
to an existing residence; seeking relief from the minimum rear yard setback in the Urban
Residential —3 District.
Action: PubUc hearing ciosed; motion to approve — 6-0.
ADJOURNED ITEMS:
G. #2951 SHELTERS OF SARATOGA ADDITION, 14 Walworth Street, area variance for an addition to
an existing residence; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width, minimum side and
rear yard setbacks and maximum principal building coverage for the building addition and
minimum front, rear and side yard setbacks to parking in the Urban Residential — 4 District.
No Action: Application adjourned to March 27
7. #2943 BENTON TRUST RESIDENCE, 58 Fifth Avenue, area variance to construct a single-family
residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard, minimum side yard, minimum total side
yard and minimum rear yard setbacks, and maximum principal building coverage requirements
in the Urban Residential — 1 District.
No Action: Pubtic hearing remains open; apptication adjourned to Mar. 27.
8. #2932 DEVALL CARRIAGE HOUSE, 59 Franklin Street, area variance for construction of a three-
caruornagehnusevvithseoondsborydweUingunit:seakingna|ieffromtheminimumfrontyard
setback (Cherry St.) and mnmum side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential —
4 District. No Action: AppUcation adjourned TBD.
9. #2931 LAKE L0cAL, 550 Union Avenue, consideration for Coordinated SEQRA Review for
expansion and construction of eating and drinking establishment, marina and docks and tourist
accommodations in the Water Related Business and Rural Residential Districts.
No Action: Application adjourned TBD.
SIGNATURE:
3/15/17
CHAIR DATE
DATE FILED WITH CITY CLERK:
CITY OF S TOGA SPRING
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
GTY HALL - 474 (31tvADw,r.1'
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YO P.14 12860
PH) 528 -S87-3550 FX) 51.8 -5E' 0 -q 4 80
WWW.SARATOGA-SPF:f,Y s.ORCi
Appeal #2776
IN THE MATTER OF THI: APPEAL OF
David Guarino and Linde. Haver
21 Park Place
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
6UL Moare,, Glair
KeiMt, 6. Ka n{a,cn., Kee.• ata+.e-
A..t. Mel t u,, Seerei ry
Garry Hosbi-out-k,
eorge. "Skiff' Cart,3o1+,
Okda/Aa, LtAdot,
Ja-comes, HeGW
from the Zoning and Building Inspector's Denial (most recently revisi:d Dec. 8, 2014) for the premises at 21
Park Place, Saratoga Springs, New York, identified as Tax Parcel No.: 165.84-1-1 in the inside district of the
City.
The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of the City to construct (2)
detached two-family residences (per emailed Dec. 11, 2014 schematic) and (1) detached garage on a lot
occupied by an existing three-family residence; seeking relief from tl..e minimum front yard setback for
both two-family residences and maximum principal building coverage requirements for the combined
three principal structures in the Urban Residential — 4 District and public notice having been duly given of
a hearing on said application held on July 14, September 22, November 17 and 24 and December 15,
2014.
In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the appl ic<utt with the detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution that the requested area variance for the
following relief or such lesser amount, as described in the submitted application and plans revised Nov. 24,
2014 (updated Dec. 11, 2014), BE APPROVED
Type of Requirement
Required/
Permitted
Proposed
Total Relief Requested
Maximum Principal Building
Coverage: Three principal buildings
combined
25%
27.8'%,
2.8% (11.2%)
Minimum Front Yard Setback:
Two-family fronting on Park Pl.
25 feet
16 feet
9 feet (36%)
Minimum Front Yard Setback:
Two-family fronting on Park Pl.
25 feet
16 feet
9 feet (36%)
1. The Applicant has demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The
buildings could be moved back on the lot to conform to the minimum front yard setback; however,
as the applicants indicate, "It would also make the location of the front of the building inconsistent
with the setback of the buildings on the north and south side of Park Pl." In addition, the two new
two-family residences were placed on the site in a way tha.: would avoid additional tree removal.
Similarly. the applicants provided an analysis of comparable principal building coverages in the
neighborhood showing that, out of 32 nearby properties, 9 currently have principal building
coverages equal to or greater than the subject requested variance. In addition, while smaller
footprints could provide the same desired interior square footage, the buildings would need to be
higher (third story) which would not be consistent with the neighborhood. In light of that, the
subject request does not appear to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting of these variances will not create an undesirable change
in neighborhood character or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicants provided an analysis
of where many of the existing, neighboring buildings are located in relation to their respective
front property lines, showing that 15 residential properties reasonably near to the subject property
have front yard setbacks less than the district requirement. It is this Board's determination that the
proposed front yard setbacks for the new structures do not substantially conflict with the historic
layout and existing streetscape of the neighborhood. The DRC provided a favorable advisory
opinion on November 5, 2014 stating, "The proposed overall mass and scale of the project, the
architectural styling, and the proposed materials would not be inconsistent, nor incongruous, with
the surrounding neighborhood".
3. The requested relief from the front yard setback may be considered substantial at 36%; however, the
requested relief is consistent with the location of other structures in the neighborhood as evidenced
by the submitted street survey identifying neighboring hones' relationship to their respective front
property lines. The Board notes the responses received from the County Planning Board, City
Planning Board, the Design Review Commission and the Saratoga Springs Preservation
Foundation, none of which find the requested dimensions unacceptable.
4. The applicants have demonstrated that the variances will not have a significant adverse physical or
environmental effect on the neighborhood. The plans identify 42% of the site would remain
permeable, which exceeds the minimum 15% required in the district. The Board is sympathetic to
the concerns expressed by neighbors as to a possible increase in traffic on these local streets,
concerns with the two additional curb cuts and the backing out of cars from the site on to both
Regent and Park Pl. These site Iayout concerns, together with any remaining concerns about trees
on site, can be appropriately considered by the Planning FIoard during site plan review.
5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created, however, this is not necessarily fatal to the
application.
Note:
County referral response, "No Significant Countywide or Intercommu::tity Impact" with comment, dated July
28, 2014.
While DRC Historic Review is not required in this case, the applicant's Nov. 13, 2014 response to the
consideration identified in the DRC's advisory opinion shall be int: arporated into the final design of the
project.
Other approvals:
Planning Board site plan review is required
Adopted by the following vote:
AYES: 7 (B. Moore, A. McNeill, K. Kaplan, G. Hasbrouck S. Carlson, 0. Ludd and J. Heticke)
NAPES: 0
Dated: December 15, 2014
This variance shall expire 18 months following the filing date of sucli decision unless the necessary building permit
has been issued and actual construction begun as per 240-8.5.1.
L21V5P4
Date I Chair
1 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.
RECEIVED
DEC 2 9 2014
ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT