HomeMy WebLinkAbout20180857 Connors Residence NOD CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Bill Moore, Chair
Keith Kaplan, Vice Chair
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
.0. Brad Gallagher,Secretary
Susan Steer
..4...t.
A
Cheryl Grey
....., , _.
CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY
Jerry Luhn
---
/,7 -4,-, .
. „ 1,1 :—
1! SARATOGA SPRINGS,NEW YORK I 2866
PH)518-587-3550 Fx)518-580-9480 Chris Hernstead
op') VANAW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG Rebecca Kern,alternate
cb9POR A%EV \ Kathleen O'Connor,alternate
RECEIVED
#3064
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF FEB11 5 2019
Jennifer Conners
87
Saratoga Ludlow Street
ACCOUNTS DEPT
Springs NY 12866
from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 87 Ludlow St. in
the City of Saratoga Springs,New York being tax parcel number 1 66.53-2-5 2 on the
Assessment Map ofsaid City.
The appellants having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to
permit the construction of a single-family residence on an existing foundation plus additions in a
UR-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on
the 29th day of October through the 10th day of December 2018.
In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicants 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 I RELIEF REQUESTED
DIMENSIONAL
REQUIREMENT
MINIMUM PRINCIPAL BUILDING COVERAGE 30% 31 .9% 1 .9%
____
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 has noted that there is a carriage house already on the property being used as a residential
structure, which leaves a limited amount of lot coverage to be allotted to the main house. The applicant
reviewed with the board the fact that the main house foundation was retained, so reducing the old
foundation's dimensions would not have been feasible.
The applicant has noted that reducing the size of the porch additions in the back would have limited their
usefulness.
The applicant further notes that the screened-in porch area could have been detached from the main house,
thereby reducing the need for principal building relief; howei,e this would have reduced its utility. The
Board notes that the current accessory structure- the pool area- is less than the 10% allotted, so some of the
unallotted accessory area could have accommodated a detached covered sitting area such as a gazebo.
Finally, the applicant has revised her plan, to remove an originally requested rear covered porch area, in
order to minimize the lot coverage variance request.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in
neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The proposed addition is in the back of the
house fronting Ludlow St., limiting its impact on neighbors. Additionally, the applicant has furnished
information on neighboring properties indicating the areas of principal coverage sought for this property
are not disproportionate.
3. The Board finds this variance not to be substantial on a percentage basis. Furthermore, the Board will
impose conditions precluding further accessory structures, noting the district requirement of 3 0% for a
principal residence and 10% for art accessory building. The current pool is approximately 5.4% of lot
area. The Board notes the 1 .9% of area variance allotted to this proposed project will result in total
coverage allowable by district requirements.
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 well exceed
permeability requirements of 2 5%.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicants desire to construct the proposed rebuilt
structure with an addition, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application.
Condition: No additional accessory structures permitted without additional relief.
It is so moved by K. Kaplan; seconded by C. Grey.
Adopted by the following vote:
AYES: 6 (B. Moore, K. Kaplan, B. Gallagher,S. Steer, C. Grey, R. Kern-Alt.)
NAYES:
Dated: January 28, 2019
I 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.
;AMP°
()j 141''4111WIL
SIGNATURE: 1/28/2019
CHAIR DATE