HomeMy WebLinkAbout20170676 DeVall Subdivision Advisory Opinion Nit 0G4
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS MARK TORPEY, Chair
JAMIN TOTINO, Vice Chair
k -.t PLANNING BOARD ROBERT F.BRISTOL
CLIFFORD VAN WAGNER
s + = - JANET CASEY
� City Hall 474 Broadway
V
'�`�-J TODD FABOZZI
*` Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
'eco Tel:5I8-587-3550 fax:5I8-580-9480 RUTH HORTON
�R � AMY RYAN,Alternate
ZO www.saratoga-springs.org
October 19, 2018
Bill Moore, Chair
Zoning Board of Appeals
City Hall, 474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
Re: Area Variances Advisory Opinion to the ZBA
59 Franklin Street— DeVall proposed 2-lot Subdivision - PB Project #17.051.1
Dear Mr. Moore:
Pursuant to your letter of May 14, 2018 the Planning Board has reviewed your request for an advisory
opinion on the above noted project.
The Planning Board understands that the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing parcel into two
lots that would result in the construction of one additional home on the newly established lot. The
Board notes that this parcel is located within the City's Franklin Square Historic District and is listed as
a"contributing property" on the New York State and National registers of historic places.
Based upon the discussion and evaluation of this project at the October 18, 2018 meeting, the Planning
Board noted the following regarding this proposal:
. The proposed subdivision would create 2 substandard lots. While the Planning Board is supportive of
appropriate urban in-fill, the Board is not supportive of subdivisions that would result in the creation of
sub-standard parcels requiring variances, particularly in the City's historic districts.
2. The Board encourages the applicant to pursue alternatives that would not result in the creation of
substandard parcels. The Board notes that within this zoning district (UR-4), 2 principal structures
would be permitted without the need for subdivision.
3. The Board notes the historic urban form of a dominant primary structure with a secondary accessory
structure within much of the City's historic urban residential areas (e.g. primary residence with
accessory carriage house use). The Board suggests the applicant explore the use of this form at this
location with a structure that is more historically and architecturally appropriate for this location.
Page I of 2
With the above considerations, an unfavorable advisory opinion was supported by a 6-0 vote of the
Planning Board.
Record of vote: motion made by M Torpey, seconded by J Casey: passed 6-0
In favor: M Torpey,J Totino,J Casey, T Fabozzi, R Horton,A Ryan (Alt.)
Absent: R Bristol, C VanWagner
Sincerely yours,
f
--7/76/ 1<' J
Mark Torpey
Chair
cc: Applicant