HomeMy WebLinkAbout20220446 1 Alger Street Area Variance Application **HANDWRITTEN APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED" [FOR OFFICEUSEI
0GA S1p
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS (Application#)
o f�� ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
F Z CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY (Date received)
U / + SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866-2296
TEL: 518-587-3550 X2533
/�CORPORATE0 19,E www.saratoga-springs.org
(Project Title)
APPLICATION FOR: ❑
INTERPRETATION, USE VARIANCE, Check if PH Required
AREA VARIANCE AND/OR VARIANCE EXTENSION Staff Review
APPLICANT(S)* OWNER(S) (lfnotapplicant) ATTORNEY/AGENT
Luke&Lauren Boughton (same) Engineering America Co.
Name
1 Alger St. 76 Washington St.
Address
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
Phone / / 518/587-1340 /
Email volksgj@yahoo.com tonyay@nycap.rr.com
Primary Contact Person: Applicant Owner Attorney/Agent
An applicant must be the property owner, lessee,or one with an option to lease or purchase the property in question.
Applicant's interest in the premises: 0 Owner ❑ Lessee ❑ Under option to lease or purchase
PROPERTY INFORMATION
1 Alger St. 165 43 3 18
1. Property Address/Location: Tax Parcel No.: - -
(for example: /65.52—4—37)
December 2008 UR-3
2. Date acquired by current owner: 3. Zoning District when purchased:
Single Family Residence UR-3
4. Present use of property: 5. Current Zoning District:
6. Has a previous ZBA application/appeal been filed for this property?
0 Yes(when? 4/18 16 Z13A approval For what?i at Coverage R FrOAt )
❑ No Setback variances
7. Is property located within (check all that apply)?: ❑ Historic District ❑Architectural Review District
❑ 500'of a State Park, city boundary, or county/state highway?
8. Brief description of proposed action:
Inclusion of an attached, non-conditioned screened porch at the side entry to the residence.
9. Is there an active written violation for this parcel? 16 Yes ❑ No
10. Has the work, use or occupancy to which this appeal relates already begun? 0 Yes ❑No
11. Identify the type of appeal you are requesting(checkall thatapp/y):
❑ INTERPRETATION (p. 2) ❑ VARIANCE EXTENSION (p.2) ❑ USE VARIANCE(pp. 3-6) 0 AREA VARIANCE(pp. 6-7)
Revised 01/2021
ENGINEERING AMERICA CO .
76 WASHINGTON S T . SARATOGA SPRINGS , NY 1 2 8 6 6
5 1 8 / 5 8 7 - 1 3 4 0
TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: FROM:
Zoning Board of Appeals Tonya Yasenchak
COMPANY: DATE:
City of Saratoga Springs NLAY 4,2022
FAX NUMBER: 'TOTAL NO.OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER:
1 application& 1 app. fee check
PHONE NUMBER: SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER:
RE: YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER:
Boughton Porch: 1 Alger
ZBA Application for Variances
❑ URGENT Q FOR REVIEW ❑ PLEASE COMMENT ❑ PLEASE REPLY ❑AS REQUESTED
To the City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals:
Engineering America Co.,on behalf of our clients Luke&Lauren Boughton,respectfully submits
the enclosed application materials for ZBA review of requested variances related to an existing/
proposed screened porch at 1 Alger St.in Saratoga Springs,NY.
An oversight by the Owners resulted in the screened porch being constructed over a property-line
into the City R.O.W.,for which there is now a violation.This application is intended to remedy
the current situation.
We respectfully request that this ZBA application be placed on the next available ZBA agenda.
Thank you for your time and cooperation.
Tonya Yasenchak,PE
Enc.
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE 6
AREA VARIANCE—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary):
Sec.2-Table3:Area&Bulk Sch
The applicant requests relief from the following Zoning Ordinance article(s)
Dimensional Requirements District Requirement Requested
Min. Yard Setback: Front(along North Property line) 10.0' 0.3'
-9.7'relief requested (97%)
Max. Building Coverage Percentage 30% 56.7%
-26.7% relief requested (98%)
Other:
To grant an area variance,the ZBA must balance the benefits to the applicant and the health,safety,and welfare of the neighborhood and
community,taking into consideration the following:
. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other feasible means. Identify what alternatives to the variance have
been explored (alternative designs, attempts to purchase land,etc.)and why they are not feasible.
The applicant had constructed the outdoor screened structure during the time of Covid restrictions so that their children could
have friends over and be"outside" together. The structure was not permitted nor surveyed and resulted in an encroachment over
the Northern property line along Alger St. The applicants did not actually attach the screened porch to the principal building (it
stands alone), and as such errantly assumed that the structure would not increase the principal building coverage. The applicants
now understand the code and realize the errors made. The only alternative to a variance being required is to remove the entire
sh actui e. Howevei,clue to 1:1 imui,ed foi ti ie co,ist,actioi 1, 1:1 iey would like to keep a pui tioi i of ti ie poi ul i ii i tact. T1 ie-
application submitted does depict a reduction in size of the screened porch by more than 2'so that the entirety of the structure is
within the prppe4 b0laindaries; The red,iced size resuits on a 195 sq ft r- - . ;a on the principal building footprint and
2.7% increase in lot coverage. There is no additional land to purchase in order to increase the lot size to reduce the coverage.
Reducing the porch area to 8'depth allows for a workable room area. Although the depth of the porch could be reduced more,the
applicants feel that less depth would not meet their needs for outdoor usable space and drop zone as it is now used not just for
gathering, but more as a mudroom. The fence will also be relocated so as to be on the property and not in the City R.O. W.
2. Whether granting the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby
properties. Granting the variance will not create a detriment to nearby properties or an undesirable change in the neighborhood
character for the following reasons:
Granting of the variance should not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby
properties. The fence will be moved onto the project site resulting in more area within the R.O.W. The screened porch is
proposed to be reduced in size and be located at 0.3'from the North property line. There are many other buildings in the
immediate vicinity which have covered porches and stairs directly on or very closet to the front property lines. Opening up the
screened porch to the property line (ie. the fence will not run in front of the porch), should result in more commonality with
neighboring properties, reducing the dense appearance of the current structure location. A porch structure is consistent with the
nature of the neighborhood. Prior tote porch being constructed,this house was one of only a few houses in the neighborhood
without a transitional porch into the house. The allowance of such a porch also continues the community feel of neighborhood
interaction while erjoying the outdoors.
Revised 01/2021
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE 7
3. Whether the variance is substantial. The requested variance is not substantial for the following reasons:
The variances requested do appear substantial. However,the pre-existing/non-conforming lot size of 4,701 sq.ft. is already
1,899 sq.ft. less than the minimum lot size required in the UR-3 zoning district. The screened porch addition is proposed at only
125 sq.ft. increase in coverage (2.7% of the overall site). The resulting coverage of the entire principal building is 56.7%, which
although appears substantial in comparison with the 30% max., is only 16.7%over the 40%total coverage which would be
allowed with a detaehed aeeessary struetwe. The 16.7% may be viewed as non Substantial.
The lot is pre-existing and non-conforming in lot width at 35.67'-36.67' instead of the 60' min. outlined in the UR-3 zone. The lot
is further restricted as the site is on a corner. The minimum 4' min. side setback(with total sides of 12')is not valid and 10'
FninirnuFn fFant setbaelt 09 Fequired. The 9.7'V8Fi8nee(97%) Fequested for the front setbaelt does appear substantial. I laweveF,
many residences in the neighborhood have porches and stairs which extend closer than the 10' required. The location of the
proposed modified porch appears to substantially align with porches on nearby homes. The substantial nature of the requested
variance may be viewed as lessened when compared with it's consistency with the neighborhood porches.
4. Whether the variance will have adverse physical or environmental effects on neighborhood or district. The requested variance will not
have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district for the following reasons:
The additional 125 sq.ft. of coverage and the location of the modified porch should not result in any physical or environmental
effects on the neighborhood or district. The roof is sloped in such a way so that runoff remains on the project site. No large trees
will be removed or affected by the project variances. The project site will over 25% permeable.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created(although this does not necessarily preclude the granting of an area variance). Explain
whether the alleged difficulty was or was not self-created:
The Owners acknowledge that the difficulty was self-created. The pre-existing/non-conforming lot size and location of the house
on the lot is not self-created. Also,the Owners did not have a full understanding at the time of their previous construction project
that there would be a need for outdoor gathering space(necessary for Covid). The desire to have a space for their children to
continue to have some type of outdoor gathering space would permit them to have such an area for any future needs.
Revised 01/2021
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALSAPPL1cAT1oN FORM PAGE B
DISCLOSURE
Does any City officer,employee,or family member thereof have a financial interest(as defined by General Municipal Law Section 809)in
this application? m No ❑Yes If"yes",a statement disclosing the name,residence and nature and extent of this interest must be filed
with this application.
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I/we,the property owner(s),or purchaser(s)/lessee(s)under contract,of the land in question,hereby request an appearance before
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
By the signature(s)attached hereto, I/we certify that the information provided within this application and accompanying
documentation is,to the best of my/our knowledge,true and accurate. I/we further understand that intentionally providing false or
misleading information is grounds for immediate denial of this application.
Furthermore, I/we hereby authorize the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals and designated City staff to enter the property
associated with this application for purposes of conducting any necessary site inspections relating to this appeal.
C 5/3/22
Date:
T� (applicant signature)
5/3/22
Date:
(applicant signature)
If applicant is not the currently the owner of the property,the current owner must also sign.
Owner Signature: Date:
Owner Signature: Date:
Revised 01/2021
2021 LAND USE BOARD FEE WORKSHEET
OPED Fees Type 2021 Fee
Application to Zoning Board ofAppeals[11[21 TOTAL #VARIANCE
Use Variance $1100+$50/app
Area Variance-Residential 450.00 2 $275/var+$50/app+$125 each add'I variance
Area Variance-Multi-Family,Comm,Mixed-Use $660/var+$50/app+$200 each add'I variance
Interpretations $550+$50/app
Post-Work Appl i cation Fee Add 50%App fee+$50/app
Variance extensions 50%ofAppfee+$50/app
Application to Design Review Commission[1] TOTAL #STRUCTURE
Demolition $385
Residential Structures
Principal $55
Accessory $55
Extension $35
Modification $55
Multi-Family,Comm,Mixed-Use Structures
Sketch $16S
Principal $SS0
Extension $200
Modification $330
Multi-Family,Comm,Mixed-Use Accessory,Signs,Awnings
Principal $140
Extension $75
Modification $140
Post-Work Appl i cation Fee Add 50%App fee
Application to Planning Board[1] TOTAL #STRUCTURE
Special Use Permit[2] $990+$50/app
Special Use Permit-extension $330
Special UsePermit-modification[2] $450+$50/app
Site Plan Review-incl.PUD:
Sketch Plan $330
Residential $330+$200/unit
Residential-extension $200
Residential-modification $400
Non-residential $660+$130/1000 sf
Non-Residential-extension $300
Non-Residential-modification $650
Subdivision-incl.PUD: TOTAL #LOTS
Sketch Plan $330
Prelimi nary Approval[2]
Residential:1-5 lots $660+$S0/app
Residential:6-10 lots $990+$SO/app
Residential:11-20 lots $1320+$50/app
Residential:21+lots $1650+50/app
Residential-extension $330
Final Approval[2]
Residential $1320+$175/lot+$50/app
Non-Residential $2000/lot+$50/app
Final Approval Modification[2]
Residential $330+$50/app
Non-Residential $550+$50/app
Final Approval Extension
Residential $135
Non-Residential $330
Other: TOTAL #LOT/ACRE
Post-Work Application Fee Add 50%App fee
Lot Line Adjustment $350
Letter of Credit-modification or extension $440
Letter of Credit-collection up to 1%ofLoC
Recreation Fee $2000/lotorunit
Land Disturbance $660+$55/acre
SEQRA EIS Review(Draft&Final) TBD
Legal Noticing if PB requires Public Hearing $50/app
[1] Fees are based on per structure,except where noted. $450.00 TOTAL DUE
[2] Legal ad required; includes City processing and publishing
For Administrative Use
Total Paid at Intake
Revised Fee
Balance Due
�� Balance Paid Staffapproval
3f1N3AV 1� IAZos 1 AVM JO iHO8 NMb— aOOM
.... ..... 7T.
('dAl)53Nf1 AlIlLLO Otl3Ha3A0
z _
Q MM301S 313NONOO
> J ¢%
w U \
Ld
o
h
cn J 3
o W I
Z J I Hoaod
o a 0 o� g s.rL — -- I
=v¢ Z a >� s'OZ :F'L'e I
o Ld
w o < I Iw o
M
W ool I g
oa I
I
I I
I I
I I I
I » I
gQ I
30 131 30VN001S I I I w z a
---- I I o= o
W w� I m Q
0 w
= ti� _;t0 0
40 I N z
�o I oIn t2
z
o
wo yw Io
2�
o� I
oz
¢w
wj �
U� w ZO I I
¢
�w ry Z I Uy I
W
w
�< I
LLm a K I I zn
W W
z
�
r
30NVa1N3 �m��
O a
UO
am
a o
¢ 035010N3 0>¢
L---- oinow
0 0 I w
LLB m I I N
v FOI I
W w l I m
I .s'oz
e'L I
o�
I 1 �
ffi I W w °mo�� I
Z � I
I
I
1 I
I I I
I I I
x
L--------------J I m¢
3NIl j00a I z
wl U
aa �I
W W OI
m &I
W¢
3.,00,OO.Z£N
0.311V >i 0 SG' NMON>i OSId)
3N V —1
S318VA 1N3W3AVd d0 HLOIM 8 31 S l O e
'14 07. = AVM 40 1H`M
3nN3AV 13 13z0S 1NAVM 301HOOalO� NMVICIOOM
..... ..... ..... J ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
('dkL)dA1)53Nf1 ALIlLLO 0tl3HH3A0
z
Q >nVM301S 3132DN00
} J
Z ,L9'SE M„OO,OO.Z£S
v wo
U Z I—
Z awy
i
'F --
o >< HONOd
Z J<
OQ� Q Oo Ar ——————— I
M:A v¢i W A x �.l'L —1 .S'OZ 'I.¢mp�t 9
CO L, (� w �< II I�w
w o -i
< I Iws o
v I Iz 0
o l awl
I � I
d. ool I oo I
gal I
I
I I
I I
I
I � I
8 0
I I
I I I J w
I �
w oo I w za
o`�„ I I LL ro C,
w^ I Q Z a
U wJ 201
a> I `lo y �o Qo°p I I o Y
o �z� I r Z 0
~< owu g 0
3 ��y inI I
z w I t o
I Io
�W I°
{.so ---- p� I� I
I ?2 I I
I O cwJ I �.8'0 I
I zd I I
W z I
LU
.zz 4 o I I za�N o I
wz
r rw w zw N rc a I I <i
as o w I I 3 w
3� a a I I I 30Ntl11LN3 m�I.'
0 a ¢ I I I 03SOlON3 W
I oNoo
�
z � i 3 �Fmw
W
�R I
V I .S'OZ
J 8�`
I I oOo�
I —
�
z
I I
I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-------------- I m<
3Nn eooa I
wl o
�I
m ug of
w<
,L9'9E 3„OO,OO.ZEN
c�
�N V � (A3llV' =SVN�i OSIV')
s318VA 1N3N3AVd 30 HLOIM 8 3l S I O 9
1 i 07,, = AVM 40 1 HOIN
•
r M
y
NL
Awa
'Wilmot
S
ilk.
f R 1
�M i
-0
\
0
CL
d 2 2
z . $�
Cl)< / � CD /
w � --
§ a)
E o E y = \
7
ƒ k ~ ¥
§ ) 0
�
3 � "- 3 2
m / k - - � E
� 2 0
co
L
, IPP
:
.OF
, � .
2 ^
< IV.2 \
z 'z �
v
CLO
N
U
L
O
Q
L (L$
U
ca-I (2) N
L
N �
U dA c
C 4— Q
p
C: J a
c > N ,
0 w
t �
d
r
L
S t. My
Q�
p p
0 0
i
E
] . LL s .
k j j
57
11
far i� J I/Iy/� ���' � • ,
• o l Now
�y!
i
O
Q +,
V)
O L
N
tn -�p
N Q
to _
a
O tf
O +� E
Ln v X
`i' O
ai L
ci; o Q
L 0- L
°u O O
Q N
t1A ° Q a)
0 c O
0 0
Z '�, Z o
0
4 .
oc v
++ a 1 ff
a) a_+
hp U N f
ro a-.+
O �F U
m Q .v 1
y�
Co
� r
O
h _ L
Q
O
Z
5
4.
OLn
L
L
Z (10
/ I
a) N
4•
O
L Q) Z , ; ;
Q
0
Q Q U
c-I _0 -
00 N as
rLn
L
Q� O
4� z
O 4., N
+, C: 4. s
U U
hp C6 N
O � 0
[O Q Q
y. i
O (�
T
N
X
O O
M Z �
' u
t
Cap
• i
• ••
•
-�--; • • •
Z in
7 1
.a
+11
i'
I
1
v
.N
0
4-
D
0
a)
4
0 r�
a, 0
N 0
v 0- �
ao 0 o
a
0 4-
0
U O
a) CLO
O N
a) t:4 u /'
Of /
C
0 C' a1
+�
to
m Q
A
4
�cF
w`
#YF.
r'
r
.q .. -
C-4 ; s
GA Bill Moore
° A'P�y CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Keith B ,molar
.k 0 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Vice Chair
#A s !' N o Adam McNeill
' CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY SecreM7
SARATOGA SPRINGS,NEW YORK 12866 Gary Hasbrouck
PH 518-587-3550 FX)518-580-9480 George"Skip"Carlson
CENTENNIA l ) James Helicke
WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG Susan Steer
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
LUKE A. BOUGHTON
1 ALGER STREET
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866
From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at I Alger Street in the City
of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.43-3-18 on the Assessment Map of said City. The
Applicant having applied for an area variance to construct an attached garage with a second-story master suite
seeking relief from front and side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the
Urban Residential—3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application from
November 23, 2015 through April 11, 2016.
In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the Applicant with detriment to the health,
safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following variance for the following amount of
relief:
Type of Requirement District Dimensional Proposed Relief Requested
Requirement
Minimum Front Yard 10 feet 7.8 feet 2.2 feet(22%)
Setback(Alger Street)
Maximum Principal 30% 54% 24% (80%)
Building Coverage
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. The Applicant desires to construct an attached two-car garage to be used for parking
and storage along with a master suite on the second floor. Due to the existing lot size, the fact that
the residence is already in nonconformance with the existing zoning requirements, and no
additional land is available for purchase, construction of any type of addition would require
multiple variances. The Applicant explored other options including detaching the garage, but the
proposed design is the only one that would permit safe access from the garage to the house.
The Board notes that the applicant has recently modified the proposed design to slightly reduce
coverage from the original application, and to remove a proposed shed to reduce the size and
number of the variances requested.
2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change
in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties. The neighborhood is densely
constructed and most residences are located close to one another and near the roads and sidewalks.
Constructing the garage at this location would be consistent with the neighboring properties.
Furthermore, building coverage for several neighboring properties exceed 50% as depicted in the
applicant's supporting documentation. Based on this information, while the Board finds this
proposal to be at the upper end of the range in the neighborhood, it is consistent with the character
of the neighborhood. The Board notes that further relief would be inconsistent with neighborhood
character.
3. The request for relief for maximum building coverage is substantial, but this due to the fact that
the residence is currently in nonconformance with existing zoning requirements. The residence
presently covers 41.3%of the lot and the addition would increase coverage to 54%. However, if
the garage was detached, the Applicant would be permitted to build an accessory building covering
10% of the property, without requiring a variance for coverage. This would result in 51.3%
coverage. The Board finds the incremental coverage of 2.7%resulting from this application to be
insubstantial.
4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or
environmental effect on the neighborhood. The Applicant has stated that portions of the existing
driveway will be removed and reseeded, a catch basin to the north of the property will remain to
facilitate site drainage, and no large or significant trees will be removed. The lot permeability will
be 28% which exceeds the zoning district's requirement of 25%.
5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship due to the applicant's desire to
construct this addition. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application.
Conditions: No additional accessory structures. The applicant has agreed to forego the shed depicted in
the plans submitted.
Adopted by the following vote:
AYES: 6 (B. Moore, K. Kaplan, A. McNeill, S. Carlson, G. Hasbrouck and J. Helicke)
NAYES: 1 (S. Steer)
Dated: April 11, 2016
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.
Date Chair
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.
it, c,elVE
8 z O
APR 7
A�oU� 0;p^
�vr