HomeMy WebLinkAbout20211211 136 White Street Area Variance NOD \\` �l�Or;:� S f Keith Ka lan, Chair
�, � f , r% CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Brad Gallagher,pvice Chair
� � ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Emi ly Bergmann
A : �-
� � .e �ustin Farrington
�f;.��. CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY Cheryl Grey
� � SARATOGA$PRINGS, NEw YoRi< 12866 Matthew Gutch
��������0f{qr�D ��� 518-587-3550 Gage Simpson
WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG �ohn Daley, alternate
#2�211211
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
John and Lee Ann Greenslade
136 White Street
Saratoga Springs NY 12866
In the matter of the appeal from the Building Inspector's determination involving a parcel at 136 White
Street,in the City of Saratoga Springs,New York,being Tax Parcel 166.77-1-12 on the assessment map
of said City. The applicant having applied for area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to
permit the expansion of a wraparound porch to the existing porch on their single-family house in the
UR-3 District. Public notice has been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 14t"and
28th days of February 2022.
In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety, and
welfare of the cormnunit , I move that the followin area variance for the followin amount of relie£
Type of Requirement DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL PROPOSED RELIEF
REQUIREMENT REQUESTED
Front Setbacic 10 ft 3 ft. 7 ft./70%
As per the submitted plans,be approved as per this Board's consideration of the following factors:
1. The applicant has demonstrated this bene�t cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the
applicant. The applicant is seeking to extend their porch laterally to wrap around the west side of the
home. The applicant has noted that there is no additional property to purchase to conform to current
zoning regulations.
The board notes that the current parch has pre-existing non-conformity in regards to minimum front set
back requirements,predating current zoning laws.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in
the neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. A visual context of the neighborhood was
provided,and the applicant noted that the design of the proposed extension will not encroach any further
than the existing structure.
3. The Board notes the requested variance is substantial,but the substantiality is mitigated by the factors
noted above.
4. This variance will not have a signiticant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood
or district. Permeability will meet the district requirement.
5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created insofar as the applicant's desire to build an in-
an extension to their current porch,but this is not necessarily fatal to the application.
It is so moved, February 28, 2022
Adopted by the following vote:
AYES: 6 (K. Kaplan, M. Gutch, J. Farrington, E. Bergmann, John Daley, G. Simpson)
NAYES: 0
Dated: February 28, 2022
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, seven members of the
Board being present.
SIGNATURE: 3/O2/2022
l'�_^__ DATE RECETVED BY ACCOUNTS
DEPT.