HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190419 Verdile Residence NOD Bill Moore, Chair
csri,
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
Keith Kaplan, Vice Chair
.,:S
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Brad Gallagher, Secretary
Cheryl Grey
-4,1 14%714—*
,`�' *^ CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY Jerry Luhn
�', c,-
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866 Chris Hemstead
\1'3PH) 518-587-3550 FX) 518-580-9480 Suzanne Morris
WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG Kathleen O'Connor, alternate
#20190419
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
Dr. Vince and Louise Verdile
60 Fifth Ave
Saratoga Springs NY 12866
from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 60 Fifth Avenue in the City of
Saratoga Springs,New York being tax parcel number 166.13-2-45 on the Assessment Map of said City.
The applicant having previously applied for an area variance (under the address 58 Fifth Avenue) to minimum
rear, side, and front yard setbacks, minimum total side yard setback, and maximum principal building coverage
under the Zoning Ordinance of said City in connection with construction of a single-family residence and
detached garage; and the Board having previously approved the area variance in a motion dated July 24, 2017,
including:
REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PREVIOUSLY PREVIOUS
DIMENSIONAL REQ. PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED
MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL BUILDING 20% 28.62% 8.62%(43%RELIEF)
COVERAGE
The applicant having now applied for: (i) a revised area variance to the maximum principal building coverage,
and (ii)new minimum adjoining lot line setback under the Zoning Ordinance of aforementioned City in
connection with the now constructed single-family residence, detached garage, and patio in the UR-1 district,
and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the May 20 and June 3, 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
MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL BUILDING COVERAGE 20% 29% 9%(45%RELIEF)
MIN.ADJOINING LOT LINE SETBACK(PATIO) 10' 5.8' 4.2' (42%RELIEF)
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.
With respect to the variance for maximum principal building coverage, an alternative design to avoid the
requested relief would come at "great expense to the owners" as the crown and fascia would have to be
removed, roofing materials cut back, and overhangs reconstructed with less substantial crown.
With respect to the variance for minimum adjoining lot line setback, the existing narrow lot, construction of
patio to account for safety concerns over grill location, and desire to maximize backyard grass area render
reconstruction infeasible.
2. The applicant previously demonstrated, and the Board previously agreed, that granting the variance with
respect to maximum principal building coverage 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.
With respect to the variance for minimum adjoining lot line setback, the applicant demonstrated, and the
Board agrees, that the patio as constructed is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and will not
affect existing views.
3. The applicant previously demonstrated, and the Board previously agreed, that the original request for total
relief at 43%was substantial,but was mitigated by the fact that the coverage requested falls within the range
of principal building lot coverages of the surrounding neighbors. The total relief of 45% now sought by
applicant does not change the Board's prior conclusion.
The Board finds the variance for minimum adjoining lot line setback is substantial; however, this is
mitigated, in part, by the fact that the patio itself is "constructed of bluestone pavers and...in plane with the
adjacent grass surface."
4. The applicant previously demonstrated, and the Board previously agreed, that the variance with respect to
maximum principal building coverage would not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the
neighborhood, citing that the variance was consistent with the existing neighborhood. The additional relief
now sought by applicant does not change the Board's ultimate conclusion.
With respect to the variance for minimum adjoining lot line setback, the applicant demonstrated, and the
Board agrees, that the patio as constructed will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the
neighborhood and is in keeping with the existing neighborhood.
5. The alleged difficulties are self-created insofar as the applicant constructed the house and patio, but this is
not necessarily fatal to the application.
Conditions:
1. Except as expressed in this motion, any prior condition(s) in the Board's motion dated July 24, 2017
continue to apply.
2. Existing patio area to remain at grade and in plane with adjacent grass surface.
Adopted by the following vote:
AYES: 5 (C. Hemstead, K. Kaplan, J. Luhn, B. Gallagher, S. Morris)
NAYE S: 1 (C. Grey)
Dated: June 3, 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.
4111111111*.
CO 11 • i s F
jr140 �`` f
SIGNATURE: '� �� �V 06/04/2019
CHAIR P ATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.