The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20210735 Berry Area Variance NOD �`l'�'�i� CITY OF $ARATOGA $PRINGS Keith Kaplan,cna�r �� S%�f Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair �. � "�1 r i ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Terrance Gallogly � ��. � � �� Cheryl Grey � ✓. �� '� CITY HALL-4�4 BROADWAY Matthew Gutch - " �� SARATOGASPRINGS,NEwYoRK12866 GageSimpson ;'t�,� Emily Bergmann - 518-587-3550 ^cJKYORATEfl ,�,h WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG #20210735 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Pavla Berry 17 Walnut Street Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 17 Walnut Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.73-2-85 on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the construction of a one-story addition, deck and covered porch to an existing single-family residence in a UR-2 District and public notice having been duly given of a public hearing on said application held on September 27 and October 18, 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 variances for the following amounts of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK�NORTH� 8 FT. 3.3 FT. 4.7 FT.OR 59% MINIMUM TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK ZO FT. 12.4 FT. 7.6 FT.OR 38% MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY PERCENTAGE 25% 27% 2%OR 8% 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. Per the applicant, the existing roof along the North side of the house is pre-existing and non-conforming at 2.4'. The new covered porch has been shifted 12" further away from property line. The applicant noted that reducing the porch size does not change the total side yard variance required. The applicant also submits that shifting the guest suite and garage addition to the North would not meet the needs of the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant stated that if the addition was moved to the West would require the removal of a tree and impact the usable space in the back yard. The applicant stated that there is no additional land available for purchase. 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, a garage already exists in the general area of the new garage addition. The Board finds that the applicant has demonstrated that the new garage will improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood. In addition, the applicant has demonstrated that the existing residence is currently 2.4' from the North property line at the front porch and that the new covered porch will be further away from the side property than the pre-existing conditions. The new proposed porch will have a full wall along the North side to provide additional privacy to the neighbors, per the applicant. 3. The Board finds the Side yard and total side yard variances to be substantial on a percentage basis; however, the substantiality is mitigated by the fact that the new addition is actually further away from the property line than the existing conditions at the property. Moreover, the new garage and guest suite addition is being sited to be within the required side yard setback per the applicant. The Board finds the driveway percentage relief not significant at 8%. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The applicant has stated that drainage conditions on the property have been improved along Cedar Alley and the new addition on the South side will not drain off the property. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicants desire to construct the proposed addition, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. It is so moved, dated: October 18, 2021 Adopted by the following vote: AYES: 5 (K. Kaplan, B. Gallagher, C. Grey, M. Gutch, S. Poppel) NAYES: 0 ABSENT: 3 (G. Simpson, E. Bergmann, T. Gallogly) Dated: October 18, 2021 This variance shall expire 18 months following the filing date of such decision unless the necessary building permit has been issued and actual construction begun as per 240-8.5.1. 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, four members of the Board being present. SIGNATURE: 10/20/2021 CHAIR DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.