HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210293 259 Caroline Area Variance NOD OG11
`5'A
Brad Gallagher,OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
KeithKaplan, Chair
Vice Chair
- � ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Terrance Gallogly
H .�. Cheryl Grey
. . CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY Matthew Gutch
•
SARATOGA SPRINGS NEW YORK 12866 Gage Simpson
�`°'PoRATEo 518-587-3550 Emily Bergmann
WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG
#20210293
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
Vision Planning Consultants LLC
P.O. Box 442
Newtonville, NY 12128
from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 259 Caroline Street
in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.13-1 -29 on the
Assessment Map of said City.
The applicant having applied for an area variances under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to
permit the construction of an accessory structure (Pool) to the existing single family house in
a Urban Residential 3 (UR 3) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on
said application held on the 10th day of May and the 7th day of June, 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 REQUESTED
REQUIREMENT
MAXIMUM ACCESSORY COVERAGE 1 0% 1 4.8% 4.8 FT (OR 48%)
POOLS FROM ADJOINING LOT LINE (REAR) 8 FT 5 FT 3 FT (OR 37.5%)
POOLS FROM ADJOINING LOT LINE (SIDE) 8 FT 5 FT 3 FT (OR 37.5%)
as per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons:
1 . The applicant has demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means
feasible to the applicant. The applicant desires to build an in-ground pool in their
back yard. Other pool shapes/placement options were investigated in order to try to
eliminate the need for a variance. For example, a 16x32 rectangular pool toward the
rear of the property was given some thought but locating the pool in the rear of the
yard meant that part of the pool was not visible from the back yard deck as the garage
obstructed its view. This was deemed a safety hazard and still would have also needed
an area variance. Additionally, due to the lot shape, and the desire for a diving board,
there is a minimum size pool required. Currently the garage and the proposed pool
account for the accessory structure percentages.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an
undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. Per
the applicant, the proposed in-ground pool will not obstruct any views. There are no
neighbors directly behind the property line. There will be landscaping as screening as
well designed around the pool.
3. The Board notes the requested variances are substantial, but substantiality is
mitigated by the factors noted above.
4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on
the neighborhood or district. Permeability will meet the district requirement.
5. The alleged difficulty is considered self-created insofar as the applicant desires to
build the in-ground pool. However, this is not necessarily fatal to the application
Condition: Limiting future principal coverage to 25.2% or total coverage not to exceed 40%
which is the district requirement.
It is so moved.
Dated: June 7, 2021
SIGNATURE: —.Esstilllb 06/08/2021
C r DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.