HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200066 Bottini Garage NOD til'�'f' � CITY OF SARATOGA SPRING$ Keith Kaplan, Chair
��� S'/� Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair
:
� '� � �'/ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Chery�Grey
� Matthew Gutch
, � ; �- ���
� '^ i CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY Christopher Mills
' 'j�'� $ARATOGA$PRINGS,NEwYoRK 12866 Suzanne Morris
;�r�� Gage Simpson
. , PH)518-587-3550 Fx)518-580-9480
�''�c�, o�� WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG Kathleen O'Connor,alternate
��POkATEO
#20200066
IN THE nIATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
Samuel Bottini
57 East Avenue
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
from the detertnination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 57 East Aveiiue in the City of
Saratoga Springs,New York being tax parcel i�umber 166.21-1-7 on the Assessment Map of said City.
The applica�nt having a�pplied for an area variance iznder the Zoning Ordinance of said City to perinit an addition
on an existing single-family residence in a UR-2 Disn-ict and public notice having been duly given of a heariilg
on application held on February 23 and March 9,2020.
In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicants with detriment to the health, safety and welfare
of the community, l move that the following area variance for the following amount of relie£
TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL PROPOSED RELIEF
REQUiREMENT REQUESTED
MAXIMUM ACCESSORY BUILDING COVERAGE 10% 1 1.4% 1.4%(14%�
As per the submitted plans and documents or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons:
l. The applicant has demonst�•ated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant.
The applicant has explored alternative options, including a tnuch larger desigii. The tnodified design
reflects the sr��allest footprint to perfonn the desired function.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that grai�ting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in
neighborhood character or den•iment to the nearby properties. The gai•age is an existii�g structure to the
rea�r of the existing house, reducing the visibility from the street.
3. The variance is not coilsidered substantial at less than 14%. The Board notes that the existing principal
coverage is 17.8%, which is substantially less than the permitted 30%. The Board further notes that the
use will be limited to such uses as that penilitted in an accessory structure and is conditioned accordingly
below.
4. The Board finds this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the
neighborhood. The lot will maintain a peimeable area substantially greater than the 25% required. The
proposed addition vertically expands upon an existing garage while tl�e expansion of the footprint is sited
in a way that minimizes the impact on any neighboring properties.
5. The alleged difticulty is self-created insofar as the applicants desire to construct the proposed accessory
structure,but this is not necessarily fatal to the application.
Conditions:
1. Existing pergola to be removed.
2. No cooking facility or range, no overnight stays, and no bathing facilities.
Adopted by the following vote:
AYES: 5 (K. Kaplan, G. Simpson, C. Mills, M. Gutch, K. O'Connor)
NAYES: 1 (B. Gallagher)
Dated: March 9, 2020
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, six members of the Board being present.
SIGNATURE: 3/1 O/2020
CHAIR DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.