Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20220446 1 Alger Area Variance previous NOD 2016 GAS Bill Moore ° '° Chair CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Keith B. Kaplan ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS vice Chair <n cn Adam McNeill Secretary M& CITY HALL- 474 BROADWAY Gary Hasbrouck SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866 George "Skip" Carlson CENTENNIAL PH) 518-587-3550 Fx) 518-580-9480 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 1 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.