HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190221 Obstarczyk Residence NOD kloGit CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Bill Moore, Chair
Keith Kaplan, Vice Chair
c-)4
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Brad Gallagher,Secretary
1101bli Cheryl Grey
CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY Jerry Luhn
' '� SARATOGA SPRINGS NEW YORK 12866 Chris Hemstead
�+ � �4�,, ,�Y� � ��` � Y Rebecca Kern
* PH)5 I8-587-3550 Fx)5 I8-580-9480
\`' VVWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG Kathleen O'Connor,alternate
#20190221
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
Chris Obstarczyk
147 Spring St
Saratoga Springs NY 12866
from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 147 Spring Street in the City of
Saratoga Springs,New York being tax parcel number 166.61-3-33 on the Assessment Map of said City.
The applicant having previously applied for an area variance to side yard setback and setback from principal
building requirements under the Zoning Ordinance of said City in connection with construction of a detached
garage with second-story storage; and the Board having previously approved the following area variance in a
motion dated February 13, 2017:
REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PREVIOUSLY PREVIOUS
DIMENSIONAL PROPOSED RELIEF
REQ. REQUESTED
MIN. SIDE YARD SETBACK - ACCESSORY 5' 3' 2'(40%RELIEF)
STRUCTURE
MIN.DISTANCE TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING 5' 2.7' 2.3' (46%
RELIEF)
The applicant having now applied for a revised area variance to the side yard setback requirement under the
Zoning Ordinance of aforementioned City in connection with the now constructed detached garage in the UR-3
district, and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on April 8,2019.
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 amounts of relief:
REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF
DIMENSIONAL REQ. REQUESTED
MIN. SIDE YARD SETBACK - ACCESSORY 5' 2.5' 2.5'(50%RELIEF)
STRUCTURE
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, when the detached garage was built,the contractor measured from the fence line under the
incorrect assumption that fence and property lines were the same. As a result, the garage roof overhang is
located at 2.5' from the property line instead of the 3' variance previously approved by the Board. The
applicant noted that any modifications to the now constructed garage roof are either financially infeasible or
inconsistent with the design previously approved by the City's Design Review Commission.
2. The applicant previously demonstrated, and the Board previously agreed, that granting this variance would
not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The
additional relief now sought by applicant does not change the Board's prior conclusion that construction of
the garage at this location is consistent with the neighborhood context.
3. The applicant previously demonstrated, and the Board previously agreed, that the request for relief at 40%
was substantial, but was primarily the result of the fact that the subject property is only 52' wide and,
therefore, a pre-existing and narrower lot than the required 60'. The additional relief now sought by
applicant does not change the Board's prior conclusion.
4. The applicant previously demonstrated, and the Board previously agreed, that the variance will not have an
adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood, citing lot permeability of 35.7% which
exceeded the district requirement of 25%. The additional relief now sought by applicant does not change
the Board's ultimate conclusion.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant constructed the detached garage, but this is not
necessarily fatal to the application.
Note: Except as expressly set forth in this motion, the Board's prior approval dated February 13, 2017 remains
unchanged
Dated: April 8, 2019
Adopted by the following vote:
AYES: 5 (B. Moore, K. Kaplan, C. Grey, J. Luhn, C. Hemstead)
NAYE S: 0
Dated: April 8, 2019
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, five members of the Board being present.
g -• t �F
SIGNATURE: - �V _ _ t 04/11/2019
CHAIR {I ATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.