The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20210748 24 Bensonhurst Area Variance Correspondance SUPPLEMENTAL NARRATIVE: DOOLIN VARIANCE APPLICATION 24 BENSONHURST AVENUE During the meeting on September 27, 2021, the ZBA requested the below information: Dimensional information Comments requested: Current/Existing Principal 32.98% Footprint of house is the same as constructed in 2008. Building Coverage See attached survey. Therefore, variance percentage relief requested should be calculated as follows: 39.3% (requestetl)- 32.98% (existing) = 6.32% Accessory building coverage 3.09% (includes 10% allowed deck) 1.04% (without deck) Driveway Width 20.18' (at garage) Driveway is the same as configured when approved in 20.08' (at 2008. See attached Survey dated March 20, 2008 from property Saratoga Springs Building file. line/sidewalk) Permeability 34.8% Required to have minimum of 25% The driveway width is the same as it was when the house was constructetl in 2008, as is the location and dimension of the back patio that is now covered. The deck was constructed with rebar to attach it to the house. The applicant plans to either cut the rebar to detach the deck from the primary structure, or to remove the deck structure in its entirety if its removal will allow the other variances to be granted. Based on the UR-2 standards, a lot is allowed up to 40% building coverage, broken down as 30% principal and 10% accessory. Because the applicants' lot has predominantly principal building coverage, the applicant would offer to remove the deck structure if the addition and existing improvements are granted variances. This would bring the property within 0.34% of the 40% total lot coverage allowed in the zone. Dimensional Relief: The dimensional relief as requested in the ZBA application is below. The building inspector's denial has not yet been issued, but applicant suggests that the below relief should be modified for the reasons set forth in italics and in the prior narrative submitted with the initial application. Dimensional Required Requested Total Relief(%) Requirements Max Principal Building 30°/o 39.3% 9.3% (31%) Coverage (incl. addition) Existing as allowed in Based on 2008 allowed: 2008: 32.98% 6.2% T�+�I Ci.Jo Co+h��L �� `�'Q fF� ��-�4 Pafio not subject to sefback regulations � � �� Deck not subject to setback regulations l7oor VoriJ Co4honL �� 7''I� Omit:Pre-existing, non- conforming. Constructed in 2008. c.,+V,��c �-�t� �:�-It ��o�} �tt� Pafio not subject to sefback regulations. �e#�ac�� 8-#� � 4.�{4�� Patio not subject to setback regulations. Ilri�io�nio�i IA/iiJFh 7F0/ nf Crnr��oiro nr �7 7Q A 0/ nr�f1 f� A A 0/ nr 4 faoF /�S20/1 Omit:Pre-existing, non- #� conforming. Constructed in 2008. AAinimi im iJio4onno frnm C� � �_\ o� rin��nhnrl rinnL Applicant offers to remove the deck if its removal will allow the proposed addition. Addition Relocation: The applicant was requested to review and analyze whether the adtlition could be moved to a different part of the property. This analysis hatl already occurred when the addition was originally envisioned. The reasons why this addition cannot be located in the rear of the property include the following (in no particular order): • Moving to the back north end of the property would eliminate all natural light to the kitchen/living area and require the removal of the existing patio, fire pit, water features, gas line, water line, landscaping, electrical, landscaping lighting, etc. which was an investment of almost$70,000, together with the removal of a portion of the permeable lawn area and existing landscaping. • Moving the addition to the back south end of the property would require elimination of the covered concrete patio, which was an investment of approximately$20,000. � As presently proposed, the addition falls within all dimensional relief(setbacks) as required by the code. If moved to any portion of the back of the lot, addition would need at a minimum setback relief from the rear yard as well as likely side yard relief. • The addition is necessary for some quiet, separate space that has sound attenuation. Locating the space adjacent to the other main living space would not achieve this goal. In the future, having a private, quiet first floor bedroom space is essential to allow the owners to age in place. • The "flow" in the interior of the house would be awkward with the addition/future bedroom located right off the living room/kitchen area. Because the back part of the center hall colonial has an open floor plan with the living space and kitchen, there is no easy method to create a bedroom adjacent that would achieve the goals of the owners, including having a space that has sound attenuation from the main living space of the house. • Construction in the rear of the property is difficult and disruptive, requiring heavy machinery to cross the narrow side yard where the AC condenser is located. When patio was constructed, damage to the AC occurred and required $10,500 repair. In conclusion, in considering the legal standard for area variances, the law requires the ZBA to"take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant." The benefit to the applicant in this instance is immense, allowing them to presently enjoy their property with a portion of the house that has some sound attenuation from the remaining areas as well as a future benefit of providing a first floor bedroom to allow them to age in place. Based on the drastic shift in the market in Saratoga Springs in the last few years, the owners seek to remain in this home.As such, the benefit to allowing the variances for the proposed construction is large. In contrast, evidence has been submitted that there is no detriment to a�n�of the adjacent neighbors. In addition to the letters of support provided by adjacent neighbors, following the required neighbor notification, the owners were contacted by property owners across the street who also expressed support for the addition. Given the evidence that the community supports this addition, that adjacent properties have not been negatively affected by any of the existing improvements and are in support of the proposed, the balancing test weighs in favor of granting the requested relief. The below survey was part of the building permit file from 2008 construction of home: � � � � �� ;� � �� _ � W f �� a � xa< �� W "� lLf a � �= � z �" � „ q � 4 �� F.�.� `� ^ � -, u ��. � � a � � �; d �y� � � �^� ❑ � a � v �a �z� �� " �' {��a � �� r 3 ��3 C q�� p k' 4 [� ��i � � � �' w4 � �tKs W� ±' � � � � • r� f ry �ay �;F p�}p� $oz �g 9 a�,,N ]S+� � Y`+ � � .+? d. �� _ � pry� .'�zq dvlp� �s'�c ZG�A m - 4 � " F Q a ❑ � � � �JS ; � tY� � � � � � VI � �k� n �+� o��r ��a �� cod #v fI5 � a a g 9p� g� �� ,�� Bd �� S5� `� ' � i �c� Q � u 9� �� 'S � . a '�� ` � r�7 '�o � �� o sr �� <� � � n} Q� ;r „�, y? Ka� �a oQ�p. Fv� ��p� ��' � ��'�' �23 �� d� �� s � [�509 �uq �'B�xb �m� �'2�" �� JF� t_ �� '� � �� i/•� w �' �"p'�' � aw z w �r� � �� D �z LL � � � �y+V�S �� 4� F�y3� �� N=o � �� 2 �� j' , �� O �� N{.ry [n Y 3 I�T . � 4d$'p $�pQG�1 } "�i� � q �Oq� � � ��Z �� KQ 4 S �x �Y P "44W �� ZY Nopl� � V'��6a �in q� . �A [YU ��-P xa>q CY ¢ a � � Rw� �� 5o+{VI� �� V4 C u��r�jN.� y0j'� �� _iyW' ' '4 ''' F� �� 4Ci �� r' a' � � ��"� f!� a> f�a �^ w a� 3W.� � �� F �`�5� . a��a F ��1} `�u� �_ � w w sz ,�'rc � Y�` �£ �c' � aao a. F z � � � wa � � c� �� qoF � s�'� z�o � �'�� z� 3 �� .� � �"i u � � `r � �a a � Fa �� d F�� 41 �`� }�m '� ��`� rc� > � gp�'� � �� wpm' ��CG [� o � o�s.. w•-s W � b � .�-y�O � 3N »Z� ��? � �4� ��5 � � ��6�Z �r= 4q� s � � �, �__ � r � � � _ � � _ � r �� - � � . .. � � �� ° � ,� ;�� , _ � ��.......�.. oa oa�...... p...... ,�...... } � �� _..... . . - p �� ...... •. � � , � �� ,..�� !� � ,.�' w � 1k�- �'A.46�95'.}9Y � y :.y"F'ec�� $�:aSF`�-" �s��ti�wU��Ls.�`6.- ' +. � � �� S �� ' � � �¢ g , � ��. � � �� ' �-f ¢ � � � �� ti A t � a � �� -------------- �� --`�; � �� --.._6LL64--- — ----�,----_ e .�..� -��.,�- --- +--- -____� ; �� -' �„ ---�----- ' ��9� � 9� � �1Ej1'� I � I � y.' . � X .�� ..g,-��. � �� P 8 R� �t�� +J �[:;;j'� ° g I� �: .� �� 4 f j� � ; i� '� ' y� �� a�S �� j�-�;'x'',_'� � y � � �s � _ �,: �- ------� 6.. a p' � 4 q n � p k p n^ f _...g�� Fa i V... _.��. ...._ .._ { '... g e :� � � �� 5� �I � Rx i -� g� � � �i A. � q i: ', ° �,y,. ~ i- . '��. � L_� i 7 � �---� i i � .,t�4 I p� � � - -- � ' � ` �� ',' } � , , � Q6 �----- ---- --�--- -------.-- �+ �� f �E � I p� � p� r I+� �� .,w�,�. �r` �.-.. �� __ _ � s - �F f! ! i � �� a. � - 13�'Q94 k91�9S.i�T p� _ � � 1 �Q §!� � �F � l i �� E � ~-'i i ' � The driveway area from above survey blown up for ease of review of dimensions: � I � I ��,-�� I �� . i 9.�`# ��--�-- •—�—�� . � � ;.—. � . , � : . ... - -. - a . . . . �. � �;� '� '?. �'�- ' �� ' - *_ - `. # - . . .. _ :� a. a�r � �A . � 'r. - . .- _ , � � F � � " .A� y - - , ' �' ' _ '+�� •'�a. ' 's'y y� {i- . � . � _ t... ' � � ..�� . :�. l� _ry � � 5�E N[}'J �r ,#�. . :' - . _ . - �y� ' c� �F � � y_ 1 _ r r � F'1��. � .f _1� �_ ' ..yai . . � � _+L'f'�41TL'f}YA 1�, ..i.�i.-� �•��• "�+� � _� ' — � , �e � � � J � � � � � • e .�. .� _ y� '�_� _ .�' � �+T � F�� f r �y1y1Y� �f ry.a� R4l� �ill! ilI .. . i'��Y� �if��}�'� ' � � a � .s�.. � ;� _ •- l _ .� • .•�,� �•.W�* _ • � ..•S. � • + �' �*'' • �ia• ' a�_ _ .' 'i . . y� ' ' ��_. �#. ... d � , - +*_` ,�'� �r, W- �� ''� " . a e . � • _v;�" � '�� r! f 1.� iHLJC+4 ' Y : ' ' _ 9 ° *' -�.• ' ... i��` a ■ ' - y. � ± � . - , _� . '" - f ' _ . a'. . +� - - - . � „ y - ., � � �� .. . . �r - •'J � _ �. _ . . � - �i - . . , _ . " . � . . � d� . . . .. . �.�� '�� N9DiH OF�PA�IE}IT �`I I �