Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20180935 McFadden Residence NOD Bill Moore, Chair Keith'Caplan, Vice Chair CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Brad Gallagher,Secretary - A ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Susan Steer Cheryl Grey 4ter CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY Jerry Luhn • Chris Hemstead SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866 Rebecca Kern,alternate _ PoRA TEA) PH)518-587-3550 Fx)518-580-9480 Kathleen O'Connor,alternate VivWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG RECEIVED 43069 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF FEB 0 5 2019 Ryan and Sonja McFadden 40 Lefferts Street ACCOUNTS DEPT Saratoga Springs,NY 12866 From a determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises located at 40 Lefferts Street in the City of Saratoga Springs,New York. tax parcel number 166.39-1-18.1 on the Assessment Map, of said City. The Applicant having applied for area variances under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the maintenance of an existing deck and construct a screened porch on an existing single-family residence in a UR-I District and public notice having been duly given of hearings on said application held on November 26, 2018, December 10, 2018 and January 28, 2019. 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 amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REQUIREMENT MINIMUM SIDE YARD 12 FT. 7.3 FT. 4.7 FT.(39%) SETBACK MINIMUM TOTAL 30 FT. 29 FT. IFT.(3%) SIDE YARD SETBACK PRINCIPAL BUILDING 20% 26% 6%(30%) COVERAGE As per the submitted documents, including the revised survey dated January 15,2019, or lesser dimensions, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The Board finds the Applicant demonstrated the benefit sought cannot be achieved by other means feasible to thc Applicant. The Applicant demonstrated that the pre-existing deck was non-conforming at the time they purchased the property and has existed for many years in its current state. The Board finds the Applicant considered removing the portions of the deck that encroach into the setback requirements and to do so would require the expenditure of significant capital resources. The Board notes that the Applicant is not seeking to alter the existing deck, but only maintain it. The Board finds that the proposed screen porch,which is the only new construction, does not require any relief. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The Board finds that the deck has existed in its current state for many years. Moreover, the vegetative screening ensures the encroaching portion of the pre- existing deck does not impede on the privacy of the neighboring properties. 3. The Board finds that although the relief requested for minimum side yard setback of 39% could be considered substantial. The Board finds this to be mitigated because of the pre-existing nature of the deck and vegetative screening that protects the privacy of the neighboring properties. The Board does not find the relief for minimum total side yard setback of 1 foot or 3%, or principal building coverage of 6.5% to be substantial. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that the variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The portion of the deck requiring relief has been in existence for many years without any negative effects on the neighborhood. Moreover, the vegetative screening along the property line protects the privacy of neighboring properties, 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. It is so moved by B. Gallagher; seconded by C. Grey. Adopted by the following vote: AYES: 6 (13. Moore, K. Kaplan, S. Steer, C. Grey, B. Gallagher, B. Kern) NAYES: 0 Dated: January 28, 2019 • Januar, 201'9 (.00 I 'limit Date Cair 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, six members of the Board being present.