HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210869 338 Caroline Area Variance Application THE�� //��LAW OFFICES OF
V ILibby Coreno, Esq.
I . ELIZABETH I ZA B E H C R E N Q.I SQ. r.c:. libby a@corenolaw.com
September 1, 2021
Keith Kaplan, Chair
Zoning Board of Appeals
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
Dear Chairman Kaplan;
Enclosed please find an application for area variances for the proposed renovation project
at 338 Caroline Street in the City of Saratoga Springs. The submission packet includes:
1. An Appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Area Variances,dated September 1,
2021 inclusive of a project narrative and related photographs;
2. A SEQRA short environmental assessment form, dated September 1, 2021;
3. A recent survey of the property, dated December 11, 2020;
4. Exterior elevations for the proposed renovations on all four sides of the residence;
and
5. A check in the amount of$825 for the review of the appeal.
Kindly advise whether any other materials are necessary to commence the review of the
application. If the application is complete, I look forward to discussing it with the Zoning Board
of Appeals at the next available meeting.
Thank you for the time and attention to this matter.
Respect 3• Ily,
Elizabeth Coreno
MEC/
cc: Members, Zoning Board of Appeals
Aneisha Samuels-Sanford
Law Office of M. Elizabeth Coreno, Esq. P.C.
63 Putnam Street, Suite 202
Saratoga Springs,New York 12866
(518)682-6901
,t,t}r i CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
(1 r ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
t
r C I-y Ho-U, - 474 f3ro-rukitj
nra
)/c.t,1 ." Scwafaga,Sta-ri tu3s New-York;1.2866
b..c. ..', µms,
/,. Tel: 518—S87--3550 X2533
INSTRUCTIONS
APPEAL TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR AN
INTERPRETATION, USE VARIANCE,AREA VARIANCE AND/OR VARIANCE EXTENSION
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
1. ELIGIBILITY:To apply for relief from the City's Zoning Ordinance, an applicant must be the property owner(s)
or lessee, or have an option to lease or purchase the property in question. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)
shall not accept any application for appeal that includes a parcel which has a written violation from the Zoning
and Building Inspector that is not the subject of the application.
2. COMPLETE SUBMISSIONS: Applicants are encouraged to work with City staff to ensure a complete application.
The ZBA will only consider properly completed applications that contain 1 original and I digital version of the
following:
ri Completed application pages I and 8, the pages relating to the requested relief(p. 2 for interpretation or
extension, pp. 3-5 for use variance, pp. 6-7 for area variance), and any additional supporting materials/
/documentation. **HANDWRITTEN APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED**
/Completed SEQR Environmental Assessment Form—short or long form as required by action.
Et/http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/perm its_ej_operations_pdf/seafpartone.pdf
Detailed "to scale" drawings of the proposed project—folded and no larger than 24"x 36". Identify all
existing and proposed structures, lot boundaries and dimensions, and the relationship of structures to
the lot dimensions. Also, include any natural or manmade features that might affect your property(e.g.,
drains, ponds, easements, etc.).
El Photographs showing the site and subject of your appeal, and its relationship to adjacent properties.
3. APPLICATION FEE (NON-REFUNDABLE): Make checks payable to the "Commissioner of Finance".
REFER TO THE CURRENT FEE WORKSHEET INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
Check City's website (www.saratoga-springs.org)for meeting dates.
Revised U I/?i7"_I
ZOM,vc BOARD APPEAL APPuCAn0N INsrRucr/ovs PAGE 2
PUBLIC HEARING ADVERTISEMENT
The Zoning Board of Appeals is required to hold a public hearing on each submitted application within ninety(90)
days from when it is determined to be properly complete by City staff.
City staff will prepare a legal notice for the public hearing and arrange to have the public hearing
announcement printed in the legal notice section of a local publication at least 5 days before the hearing.
PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION
Applicants are required to mail a copy of the public hearing legal notice to all property owners within the following
distances from the boundaries of the land in question:
Type of variance Distance for property owner notification
Use variance 250 feet
Area variance& Interpretation 100 feet
This notice must be sent at least 7 days but not more than 20 days before the date of the public hearing.
City staff will email a copy of the"property owner notification letter"to the applicant.The applicant must then send
the notification letter to the nearby property owners.Applicants may not include any other materials in this mailing.
The mailing must be certified by the U.S. Post Office. Prior to the public hearing,applicants must present the Post
Office "certificates of mailing" to the ZBA. If"certificates of mailing" are not presented prior to the hearing, the
hearing will be cancelled.
Revised 01/2021
2021 LAND USE BOARD FEE WORKSHEET
OPED Fees Type 2021 Fee
Application to Zoning Board ofAppeals[1][21 TOTAL WARIANCE
Use Variance $1100+550/app
Area Variance-Residential 825 5 $275/var+$6O/app+$125 each add?variance
Area Variance-Multi-Family,Comm,Mixed-Use $660/var+$50/app+$200 each add"variance
Interpretations $550+$50/app
Post-Work Application Fee Add 50%App fee+$50/app
Variance extensions 50%ofApp fee+$50/app
Application to Design Review Commission[11 TOTAL #STRUCTURE
Demolition $385
Residential Structures
Principal $55
Accessory $55
Extension $35
Modification $55
Multi-Family,Comm,Mixed-Use Structures
Sketch $165
Principal $550
Extension $200
Modification $330
Multi-Family,Comm,Mixed-Use Accessory,Signs,Awnings
Principal $140
Extension $75
Modification $140
Post-Work Application Fee Add 50%App fee
Application to Planning Board[li TOTAL ffSTRUCTURE
Special Use Permit[21 $990+$50/app
Special Use Permit-extension $330
Special Use Permit-modification[21 $450+550/app
Site Plan Review-incl.PUD:
Sketch Plan $330
Residential $330+$200/unit
Residential-extension $200
Residential-modification $400
Non-residential $660+$130/1000 sf
Non-Residential-extension $300
Non-Residential-modification $650
Subdivision-incl.PUD: TOTAL #LOTS
Sketch Plan $330
Preliminary Approval Ill
Residential:1-5 lots 5660+550/app
Residential:6-10 lots $990+$50/app
Residential:11-20 lots $1320+$50/app
Residential:21+lots $1650+50/app
Residential-extension $330
Final Approval 121
Residential $1320+5175/lot+550/app
Non-Residential $2000/lot+550/app
Final Approval Modification[2)
Residential $330+$50/app
Non-Residential $550+$50/app
Final Approval Extension
Residential $135
Non-Residential $330
Other: TOTAL BLOT/ACRE
Post-Work Application Fee Add 50%App fee
Lot Line Adjustment $350
Letter of Credit-modification or extension $440
Letter of Credit-collection up to 1%of LoC
Recreation Fee 52000/1otorunit
Land Disturbance $660+555/acre
SEORA EIS Review(Draft&Rnal) TBD
Legal Noticing 8 PB requires Public Hearing $50/app
[11 Fees are based on per structure,except where noted. $825.00 TOTAL DUE
[21 Legal ad required;includes City processing and publishing
For Administrative Use
Total Paid at Intake
Revised Fee
Balance Due
__f_j_Balance Paid Staff approval
"HANDWRITTEN APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED** JFOR OFFICE USEI
• � ts'44, CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS (Application#)
o ' r ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
t' ;r,
CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY
:, (Date received)
.- SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866-2296
• 4:; .. TEL: 518-587-3550 X2533
,ryc�RPOR�tEO �9,y www.saratoga-springs.org
(Project Title)
APPLICATION FOR:
INTERPRETATION, USE VARIANCE, Check if PH Required Fl
AREA VARIANCE AND/OR VARIANCE EXTENSION Staff Review
APPLICANT(S)* OWNER(S)j/1 not applicant) ATTORNEY/AGENT
M. Elizabeth Coreno
Name
338 Caroline Street
Address
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-421-1366
Phone
libby@corenolaw.com
Email
Primary Contact Person: ElApplicant Downer 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
338 Caroline Street 166 14 4 5
I.Property Address/Location: Tax Parcel No.: - -
(for example: /65.52—4—37)
August 8,2020 UR-1
2. Date acquired by current owner: 3.Zoning District when purchased:
Residential UR-1
4. Present use of property: 5.Current Zoning District:
6. Has a previous ZBA application/appeal been filed for this property?
0 Yes(when? For what? )
m 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:
9. Is there an active written violation for this parcel? 0 Yes 121 No
10. Has the work, use or occupancy to which this appeal relates already begun? ❑Yes E No
11. Identify the type of appeal you are requesting(check all that apply):
0 INTERPRETATION(p.2) 0 VARIANCE EXTENSION(p. 2) 0 USE VARIANCE(pp.3-6) a AREA VARIANCE(pp.6-7)
Revised 01/2021
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS APPLICA77ON FORM PAGE 2
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? Dyes ❑No
4. If the answer to#3 is"yes,"what alternative relief do you request?❑ Use Variance 0 Area Variance
EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary):
I. Date original variance was granted: 2. Type of variance granted? 0 Use 0 Area
3. Date original variance expired:
S. Explain why the extension is necessary.Why wasn't the original timeframe sufficient?
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:
Revised 01/2021
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALSAPPLIG477ONFORM 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¢s"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 01/2021
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS APPLICAT/ON FORM PAGE 4
B. Has property been listed for sale with ❑Yes If"yes",for how long?
the Multiple Listing Service(MLS)? CINo
I)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? DYes ❑No
If yes,describe frequency and name of publications:
3) Has the property had a"For Sale"sign posted on it? ❑Yes 0 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 01/2021
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALSAPPUC477ONFORM PAGES
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 01/2021
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEA[SAPPUG477ON FORM PAGE 6
AREA VARIANCE—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary):
240-2.3 Table 3
The applicant requests relief from the following Zoning Ordinance article(s)
Dimensional Requirements District Requirement Requested
Maximum building coverage 20% 25.2%
Front yard-Porch 30 ft 6.9 ft
Front yard-second floor only 30 ft 12.75 ft
Side yard(east) 12 ft 7.1 ft
Total side yard 30 ft 22.1 ft
Other:
The house and lot are preexisting,non-conforming due to the construction of the home in 1954. The variances requested are
necessary due to existina non-conformina conditions.
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.
See attached narrative.
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:
See attached narrative.
Revised 01/2021
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALSAPPLIG4TION FORM PAGE 7
3. Whether the variance is substantial. The requested variance is not substantial for the following reasons:
See attached narrative.
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:
See attached narrative.
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:
See attached narrative.
Revised 01/2021
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS'APPL/C4 TION FORM PAGE B
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? la No ❑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 purchaser(s)/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 with this application for purposes of conducting any necessary site inspections relating to this appeal.
Digitally signed by M.Elizabeth
M. Elizabeth Coreno Coreno
Date:2021.09.01 10:27:37-04'00' Date:
(applicant signature)
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 01/2021
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part 1 - Project Information
Instructions for Completing
Part 1—Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the
application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on
information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as
thoroughly as possible based on current information.
Complete all items in Part 1.You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the
lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item.
Part 1—Project and Sponsor Information
M.Elizabeth Coreno,Esq.-Area Variances
Name of Action or Project:
Single family residence addition
Project Location(describe,and attach a location map):
338 Caroline Street,Saratoga Springs,NY(166.14-4-5)
Brief Description of Proposed Action:
The Applicant proposes to add a second story,garage,and 4 season room to pre-existing,non-conforming single family residence. The additional
square footage requires a series of area variances due to the pre-existng conditions. Applicant seeks a variance from maximium building coverage,
front and side yard setbacks.
Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Telephone: 518-421-1366
M.Elizabeth Coreno,Esq. E-Mail: Libby@corenolaw.com
Address:
338 Caroline Street
City/PO: State: Zip Code:
Saratoga Springs NY 12866
1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law,ordinance, NO YES
administrative rule,or regulation?
If Yes,attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that ❑
may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. Um),continue to question 2.
2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other government Agency? NO YES
If Yes,list agency(s)name and permit or approval: t-- ❑
3. a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? 7290 SF acres
b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? 1842 SF acres
c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 7290 SF acres
4. Check all land uses that occur on,are adjoining or near the proposed action:
❑Urban ❑ Rural(non-agriculture) El Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑✓ Residential(suburban)
❑ Forest ❑ Agriculture ❑ Aquatic El Other(Specify):
D Parkland
Page 1 of 3 SEAF 2019
5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A
a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations? ❑ ❑� ❑
b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? 171 ❑
NO YES
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape?
CI El
7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin,a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES
If Yes,identify: [] ❑
NO YES
8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? ❑ ❑
b. Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? ❑
El
c. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed ❑ El
action?
9. Docs the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES
If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies:
El
10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES
If No,describe method for providing potable water: n ❑
11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES
If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment:
❑ El
12. a.Does the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building,archaeological site,or district NO YES
which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places,or that has been determined by the El
of the NYS Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the
State Register of Historic Places?
CIb. Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for ❑
archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)archaeological site inventory?
13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action, or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES
wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency? ❑
b. Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? C ❑
If Yes,identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres:
Page 2 of 3
14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on,or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply:
❑Shoreline ❑ Forest ❑Agricultural/grasslands ❑ Early mid-successional
❑Wetland ❑ Urban ❑✓ Suburban
15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats, listed by the State or NO YES
Federal government as threatened or endangered? ❑ ❑
16. Is the project site located in the 100-year flood plan? NO YES
El ❑
17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? NO YES
If Yes, 0 ❑
a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? ❑ ❑
b. Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems(runoff and storm drains)? ❑ ❑
If Yes,briefly describe:
18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the impoundment of water NO YES
or other liquids(e.g.,retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)?
If Yes,explain the purpose and size of the impoundment: ❑ ❑
_L9. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste NO YES
management facility?
If Yes,describe: ❑ ❑
20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO YES
completed) for hazardous waste?
If Yes,describe:
❑ ❑
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWLEDGE
Applicant/sponsor/n e: M. Elizabeth Coreno,Esq. Date:09/01/2021
•
Signature: �/ Title:
Owner
PRINT FORM Page 3 of 3
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Application for Area Variances
M. Elizabeth Coreno
338 Caroline Street
Saratoga Springs,New York
I, History
: i:!;
+ +* .� .. J: r44%- .L 'rte '„;, r-t .�:r fir/:yltc • y <
y F „44
� t .. ,^ray t 'Ott + a..,.
ti �y
.,- _ . - .. ♦ri. 1. • it
. ,.
, .. . .„ ,
. . . ,
,..%. „.. „ .;., .- -... .
t 1 'J
r r A
r fi h
c:e..
The property at 338 Caroline Street(the"Property") was built in 1954 and was part of the
Moran Subdivision of 1950. At the time, the City required that the homes be set back as
measured from edge of pavement. rather than from the front lot lines. Therefore, the vast
majority of homes in the UR-1, specifically along Caroline Street and its side streets, are pre-
existing non-conforming from the current zoning which requires 30 feet from the front lot line.
Additionally, the lots on Caroline Street were just over 60 feet in lot width when originally
conveyed, while the minimum lot width in the UR-1 is now 100 feet(a layout of the pattern of
front yard distances consistent with the Property is shown in yellow in the photograph of Page
2).
Coreno
Project Narrative--338 Caroline Street
September 1,2021
The Property also was constructed with a smaller building footprint (929 SF)than is
permitted under the current zoning (1000 SF) and on a smaller lot (7290 SF) than is allowed
presently (12,500 SF). However, these pre-existing non-conformances can be found in nearly
70% of the homes in and around the Property. The remaining pre-existing conditions are
demonstrated in the Table below.
4
fifi ,
c
- -. '' :- . . .
it,
%i A.
or: 10
T.
c
•
•
{ptMS18 St k a ,
aralme St line: r
,1 '-'7 Ih."+' ...
a
''' ;- if 1 t4''''' ' :,
t
.' -i-
UR-1 Zoning Code Pre-Existing
Min Lot Size 12,500 SF 7290
Min Avg Lot Width 100 ft 77.24
Max Building Coverage 20% 14.9%
Front Yard 30 ft 7.75' (porch only)
13.25' (house)
Rear Yard 30 ft 49.66 ft
Each Side 12 ft 15,8 ft(west)
24.0 ft(east)
Total Side 30 ft 39.8 ft
Min Floor Area 1000 SF 929 SF
Permeability 30% 22.6%
2
Coreno
Project Narrative—338 Caroline Street
September 1,2021
A recent survey of the Property demonstrates that the house is substantially non-
conforming and cannot be brought into compliance without complete demolition, relocation of
the foundation and destruction of the tree in the rear of the property. In the map below,the
existing home is shown in white and proposed additions are shown in gray with the allowable
building envelope in red.
9E0 I .1
4.014.
1 i I sNED M Y � � U*F
nnTT 4q{
fit.--'! S�I P 1j d G
,1 1
• I`G� •i .. .3.1,----_`ter.
1
- 6.5 + a" . 0.6 'se�
Lands Now or Formerly of0 41
M.ELIZABETH CORENO 1
Instrument No.202002671.2 Tax /� 31
11 338 Map ID U E5 14-4-S ,.-
318
' '
3�$CAROLINE STREE"r
AREA=7290±SQ. FT.
ort t Post // 1
r
wm I
caw.rc4 Prr311 ON4' 1,
1 1 _.. � pyx.
I1�
GARAGE _ T//
ADDITION TWO-STORY r'
_RAGE DWELLING
' ,
J4
F4.1's - t�
c 16.0'# r� . s
,.1
II
iz1 I -72'i---!
_L_ 'i: V
f 1
?1RF -i `.^I e
O]r1C.P[Y{4I 1,1
—-- —1p # `ILS
!'w�a�n i wr�
—7--)
r.-vr re su
11. Proposed Additions to Home
The Applicant is proposing a series of improvements to the home which are necessitated by
its limited functionality, proximity to the street, and safety concerns. Most of the additional
square footage will occur either on the existing footprint of the home or within the allowable
setbacks. Where the Applicant seeks relief is from setback requirements that cannot be met
without destruction and relocation oldie home.
A. Garage addition
The Property is one of only two parcels in the entire Caroline/Benton/Schuyler/Fifth block
which does not contain an attached garage. Most, if not all, of those surrounding lots have
garages which (1) are single car; (2)are recessed; and (3) do not appear to meet the current side
yard setback zoning requirements. An inventory of all homes in the block with the description of
their garage sizes, lot sizes, types of garage, and year of construction is provided below.
3
Coreno
Project Narrative—338 Caroline Street
September 1,2021
331 Caroline Street — 166.14.2-411', 1451 0 0.16 _ Carport; 976 sq ft 1 2017!
332 Caroline Street 166-14-4-1 1 1102 648 0.21, Attached; 16 x 24 1 _ 1954.
333 Caroline Street 166.14.2-40 1 1104 0 0.23j Attached 24 x 20 1_ 1958'
L350 Caroline Street 166.14-4-13 2. 2308 0 0.321 Attached; 21,16 2 1983'
'
113 Benton Drive 169.14.2-54 1' 1952 0 0.26. Attached! 24 x 20 1 1980
118 Benton Drive 165.14.2-51 1' 1312 656 0.18 Attached: 21 x 14 1 1965
19 Benton Drive 166.14-2-52 11 1514 0 0.18 Attached 26 x 14 1 1960
125 Benton Drive 166.14-1-19 1', 2234 762 0.22 Recessed'; 20 x 16&20 x 14 1 195811916
101 Fifth Avenue 166.14-4-39 2 2270 0 0.44 Recessed; 22 x 20 1 1946
1107 Fifth Avenue 166.14.4-41 2 3121 0 0.27 Recessed, 25 x 13 _ 1 2017
'109 Fifth Avenue 166.14-4-8 11 1944 916 0.27 Recessed: 21 x13 1 1954
123 Fifth Avenue _ 166.14-4-12 1 1912 0 0.34 Attached: 24 x 18 1 1953
22 Schuyler Drive 166.14-1-10 1 1192 612 0.1.6 Carport 34 x 11_ 1 1952
25 Schuyler Drive 166.14-2-43 _ 1 1120 0 0.24 Recessed 24 x14 1 1960_
27 Schuyler Drive 166.14-2-42 lei 875 336 0.16 Recessed 2.2 x 17 1: 1947
32 Schuyler Drive 166.14-1-14 1. 840 0 0.2 Flo Car 0 0.
35 Schuyler Drive 166.14-4-2 1 1212 0 0.15. Recessed 20 x 18 1 2037.
40 Schuyler Drive 166.-H-19 7.5 2132 0 0.141 0 22 x 16 2 1987
The lack of a garage presents significant challenges in the existing layout of the house.
Both entrances to the home are located in the center of the structure—front and back. Therefore,
the current driveway layout requires either walking out onto Caroline Street to access the front
door or walking around the back of the home to access the rear door. During the summer season,
the safety of walking from the car onto Caroline Street is significantly hampered by excessive
speed of those exiting the race track. Therefore, the rear door is utilized most of the time.
However, the darkness at night and the distance to travel from existing the car to the rear of the
house, with groceries and children, presents serious safety concerns. These concerns have grown
over the years as more and more inhabitants of the homes around the Property are not owner
occupied during these months and strangers have been confronted in the Applicant's yard and
driveway.
Moreover,the wintertime brings even greater challenges to access the home because any
midday snowstorm requires(1) no on-street parking; (2) shoveling half the width of the home
from the driveway to access the rear door; and (3) inaccessibility to the front door due to the
front walk terminating on Caroline Street which is most often blocked by snow piles. It is
surmised that this is the reason so many of the homes in the neighborhood block contain attached
garages.
Notably, most garages in the area are (1) single car and(2) recessed from the main
frontage of the home. Therefore, the Applicant's proposed garage has been designed to be in
conformance with the character and detail of the neighborhood. The garage has also been
located on the left side of the existing structure because there is insufficient room on the right
side for a 16 ft. single car garage without creating a 0' lot line condition on the right side of the
home. As a result, the current driveway most be relocated from the right side of the home to the
left and will thereby create more even streetscape distances between the structures on the
adjoining parcels. Additionally, the garage and the new front walk allow access to the home
without having to enter onto Caroline Street. A rendering of the proposed garage is shown
below.
4
Coreno
Project Narrative—338 Caroline Street
September 1,2021
y
\ ,,.''' ' 1
1 •--:
}
7 -
. 111411
1
IIril I [
. tti
.fi- ----- lir A
B. Second Floor Addition
In the original design and construction of the home. the stairs to the basement are located
immediately in front of the rear entrance. As shown in the existing floor plan below, when both
the door to the rear of the home and the door to the basement are opened, it creates a condition
where one cannot enter the home or exit the basement at the same time. There have been several
incidents where a child has fallen down the basement stairs when trying to ascend to exit and
someone has opened the back door, thereby preventing them from being able to open the
basement door and tumbling back down. Due to this serious safety concern, the Applicant
discussed modifications to the home layout to address the situation with an architect.
F.
GL
,,,,,,-
11
MASER
B�DRADoA a i. �:JR --4 i K: X44
_ 1 ',i.
1 - i
TT _ E
CL •:
eroRooN,.2 ,C CL c RFn ,t-vin
1 ^ G1
5
Coreno
Project Narrative—338 Caroline Street
September 1,2021
After meeting with an architect at the Property, several options for relocation of the stairs
were considered but all of them would either have resulted in a loss of the only bathroom in the
home or one of the bedrooms due to the limited footprint and layout. It was determined that
additional square footage would be necessary to move the stairs so as not to violate the current
building code. First, the Applicant and architect looked at expanding the footprint of the home to
allow the relocation of a bedroom, but the existing front and side setback requirements in the
UR-1 would have necessitated substantial variances for a larger single story. Second,the rear
extension of the home would have required additional coverage and thereby raise permeability
concerns which would have required even more substantial variances, loss of the rear tree, and
an attached garage at the rear of the lot—thereby extending the driveway coverage. Therefore,
the decision was made to add a second story onto the footprint of the home which would (1)
permit the movement of the stairs to the center of the home; (2) prevent the loss of a bedroom;
(3) limit the number of variances impacting the left and right-side neighbors; (4) reduce the
amount of coverage variance requested; and (5) maintain a permeability consistent with the
current zoning.
As shown below, the bulk of the additional square footage has been added to the existing
first floor footprint and the stairs have been moved to the center of the home. equidistant
between the front and rear doors.
1111
S21R-
III_ ■■ non
■■
■■
sEttwcrLc u' „t'L
Emmimmilmr
► iii
■■
_ 9F
7211 TFaLFYfPCN va-- '
C. The 4 Season Room
A small walkout four-season room has been added to the rear of the home to allow for
rear living space, removed from Caroline Street. Existing conditions are such that living space
and the bathroom are only +/-23 ft. from the front windows on a street which can be loud, busy
(both pedestrian and vehicular) and lack privacy—even for conversations and personal needs. A
6
Coreno
Project Narrative—338 Caroline Street
September 1,2021
rear living area has been added for privacy and quiet within the setback areas of the existing
zoning and bathroom has also been moved off Caroline Street to the rear of the home. The
addition does cumulatively increase the maximum coverage under the current zoning(25.2%
from 20%) by bringing the total to 1,842 SF; a total that is well within the 2500 SF of coverage
contemplated by the current zoning (20%of 12.500 lot size in the UR-1). It is solely due to the
nature of the pre-existing substandard lot and subsequent zoning restrictions which requires the
coverage variance and the home has been designed to create the least coverage variance possible.
\ I Pi
18 1+
lT`-,
10 loo `D 100
r. .c
,� i -fir
______ __._
"-•-•- ._ - —.. __.. .,,,,„
rrrr rr r ' ,1=dvl� ft it
rr �
- is no ■eENis l � s
aum ■M ■i MM
■i ME ■■ ME
■■ ■O MO MO F,RSTrao s
: --adv
Y
_ _ _y'_ PT
pYqW”"
��' .B vrA.
D. Front Porch Expansion
The front porch in the proposed plans has been widened slightly to allow for two chairs
facing Caroline Street, as well as provide additional roof coverage and protection of package
deliveries from UPS and Amazon which are routinely damaged from weather in its existing
condition. It is also an aesthetic improvement to the home and commensurate with the most
recently installed front porches in the neighborhood. The depth of the porch will remain the same
except that a small variance is necessary for 0.85 feet to account for the eaves off the new porch
roof.
III. Request for Area Variance Relief
The Applicant has included a table of existing conditions and proposed conditions so as
to demonstrate the aspects of the proposal which are pre-existing non-conforming and the relief
requested from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The requested variances are highlighted in yellow
and the aspect that achieves greater compliance than existing is shown in green.
7
Coreno
Project Narrative—338 Caroline Street
September 1,2021
URI Zoning Pre-Existing Proposed Variance
CI
Min Lot Size 12,500 SF 7290 No change None
Min Avg Lot 100 ft 77.24 No change None
Width
Max Building 20% 14.9% 25.2% 5.2%
Covera e
Front Yard 30 ft 7.75' (porch) 6.9(porch) 0.85 ft from pre-existing to
eaves(1' floor)
13.25' 12.75' 17.25 ft from pre-existing
(2°d floor house) (211d floor house) to eaves(2.,d floor)
Rear Yard 30 ft 49.66 ft 40.1' None
Each Side 12 ft 15.8 ft(west) 15.0 ft(west) None(west)
24.0 ft(east) 7.1 ft(east) 4.9 ft(east)
Total Side 30 ft 39.8 ft 22.1 ft 7.9 ft
Min Floor Area 1000 SF 929 SF 1,153 SF None
Permeability 30% 22.6% 28.8% None
IV. The 5-Part Balancing Test
In order to establish entitlement to area variance relief, the Applicant must demonstrate
that, on balance, (1)the benefit sought cannot be achieved by other feasible alternatives; (2) the
variance will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby
properties; (3)the variance is not substantial; (4) the variance will not have adverse physical or
environmental effect on the neighborhood; and (5)that the difficult was not self-created.
A. Feasible Alternatives
As set forth above, alternatives for the variances requested were sought and design
elements were considered to create the fewest number of variances possible while mitigating the
existing conditions and safety concerns. It is not possible to alleviate either the lack of garage or
the basement/back door design defect without expanding the square footage of the home. The
least possible impact of increased square footage was to build onto the existing footprint, create a
single-car, recessed garage, and add a small area of zoning compliant rear yard living space. The
design also was created to preserve as many of the significant trees on site as possible (3 out of
4). Taken together, the modifications to the home resolve the problematic physical and safety
conditions, the proximity of the home to the noise and din of Caroline Street, while minimizing
the relief requested to the minimum variances necessary to accomplish the relief from the
hardship.
B. Undesirable Change in the Neighborhood
As demonstrated above, the proposed changes to the Property are consistent with the size
and scale of the homes located in the neighborhood.
8
Coreno
Project Narrative—338 Caroline Street
September 1,2021
I. Two-Story Home: A two-story home can be found next door(Laskey),to the rear
(Mullen), and in the immediate vicinity: 328 Caroline Street, 344 Caroline Street, 3
McAllister,4 McAllister, 6 McAllister, 39 Schuyler, 40 Schuyler Dr., 102 5'Ave, 103
5th Ave, 107 5`h Ave. The proposal is neither inconsistent nor excessive with the homes
immediately adjacent and in the broader neighborhood.
2. Porch: Porches of similar size and scope have been added to 330 Caroline Street, 328
Caroline Street, 22 Schuyler Drive, 14 Schuyler Drive and many others. The current
proposal does not encroach any closer to Caroline Street than has existed since
construction with the exception of the measurements to the eaves under the current
zoning. The aesthetic look is an improvement to the neighborhood and consistent in size
and design.
3. Side Yard/Garage: The total side variance will enable a single car garage which is
overwhelming consistent with the neighborhood and will balance the street view of the
home between its east and west sides. It was designed specifically so as not to create a
significant burden or impact to either adjoining neighbor. The eastern side variance
requested is under 5 ft and the total side variance is less than 8 ft.
4. Lot Coverage: The home is demonstrably more consistent with the lot coverage
limitations than many in the neighborhood and the 5.2% variance is far less than has been
granted by the Zoning Board to homes built on the now-substandard lots of the UR-1. As
noted above, the total coverage at 1,824 SF is consistent with the 2,500 SF permitted in
the UR-1 on conforming lots. Therefore, relief requested is entirely consistent with the
neighborhood and the precedent of the Zoning Board.
C. Variances are not Substantial
For the reasons previously discussed,the variances requested are the minimum relief
necessary to the hardships presented by the existing conditions. The Applicant has worked with
an architect to create a design which seeks the least relief possible while maintaining consistency
with the character of the neighborhood. The most substantial variance is the second floor of the
home (for which there is no code provision to vary from as the proposal meets the height
limitations for the zone) but rather that the second floor will necessarily be closer to the street
than permitted by current zoning. For reasons that are self-evident, it is impossible to construct a
second-floor on a home anywhere other than on its first floor. Therefore, the substantial nature
of the second-floor variance is mitigated by the pre-existing non-conforming nature of the first
floor and no alternatives exist by which to create less of an impact. The side yard,total side, and
coverage variances are all minor in nature and the least impactful to neighbors on both sides.
D. Adverse Physical and Environmental Effects
The Applicant is unaware of any physical or environmental effects to the neighborhood
as a result of the proposed changes.
9
Coreno
Project Narrative—338 Caroline Street
September 1,2021
E. Difficulty was not Self-Created
As set forth above, the difficulties of the home design and the Property largely existed
prior to the current zoning and therefore substantially limited the ability to resolve them in
compliance with the Code. However, even if the Board were to consider the difficulty self-
created, it is not fatal to the application if the Applicant can demonstrate that, on balance, there is
entitlement to relief.
10