Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20220862 190 194 Grand Avenue Area variance presentation Apphcation for Area Varl' ances of Mary Aloy and G Quinon for the premises at 190- 194 GAvenue City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals October 24, 2022 Matthew J. Jones, ]Esq. David R. Carr, Jr., RLA Jones Stever LLP The LA Group, Landscape Attorneys At Law Architecture and Engineering, P.C. Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 I t N' 1 y 1 { F , 49 it .00 nd Ave , IL1 ; r t CIO r, I + 4, �. : ry s- `•� a 2 ._ n on fow d _ - - — -. VIN W I u U0 ' =_ ■ ` r -: I �� h■i i a r i N i i R � ■� i■�N N i '^*r:"�^.-"��'�eR" � 1 1k i��[, � � ���--� +�aiP'fi�i�: �i� �,; �,•. ..tee.-==.,. - Div. '' w• Google Earth _ @2022 Google 7.83 ft 3 �" = •a, fir' � �,� �`"w... $T l if _y - , Pk MAA r r �1tali Google Earth - - @2022 Google I 8.50 f 4 - r+r .y i . s � g r . f , i y I - �ty r 1.M1 cum..� c•} �d.'+• �, �za F-^� .� n., - , •, t w - •r�, :.`_ '� `:'f!' ::. .,.L�i:.r- _ ...; y' � fi'�',� �Y Sri '�i`L�t �---=��'�' z +versa ! F V4�i ;+:x , . V " JM`n,llr4a,flV.vPcnV n'9M NtptlM_ - �¢ A � :-, -vim•.,, W i rl IRV 711 f ci J' ,� Ta v .4t - — 1 yam _;I "`-f. M � •: ., � `�- � — - a' _.4e��` rt .. ... ' l 7 Co Z ZONING BOARD OF. APPEALS i OF THE CITY OF 3AnAT00A 3PAINO3 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL of NAHC� Daniel J. Reilly may. ADDRESS. 278 Ballston Avenue C Saratooa —rings NY 1p66 !� J from the deterntnation of the eutldtng Inspector Involving the premises, No. 190, 192, 194 Grand Aver'V In the City of 3arstogn Sprtngs. being 3ectton 165.66 c ' !lock 3 , Lot 2 on the Assessmant Map of Said City, r L'NEfiLAS. The Appellant having applied for a ( ) Use Variance. ( x] Area Variance, ( ) Spec981 Permit, and/or ( ) Interpretation under the Zoning Ordinance of rsld City as affiendedo and due public notice having boon duly given of a hearing on said application hold on the 27th day'of April 19 94. vri1LREAS, after due consideration. the board makes the following:rasolutton and finding of fact' Area variance for a front yard setback from 25, to 51, second front yard setback from 251 to 0- and side yagd setback from 8' to 01, be granted for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty that would result in significant economic injury if the variance were not granted because it is not economically feasible to relocate the building. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that this action is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship for the same reasons as set forth in No. 1. t 3. The granting of this area variance will not have an adverse impact on the essential character of the neighborhood because the building6 has..existed.in its present location since its construction prior to 1961. Cited. April 27 19 94 ADOPTED by the following votst AYES' ,NAYSI 7 Q MOTION APPROVED 10MINC WARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SARATOCA SPRINGS, H. V. Dat.f SG -� t HL7CLbY gerttfy the above to be a full gtrfaait p � gruaa and sorrect ;eopy of reeolutton dulyado tad by the iontng board of APPOSIS of the City of >ferat�sg g�rtnga on the Tate abovr eentlo�lrla 7 Members of the $sold bond ptgtgnte Ditsf 1 t ' 3tertttry , — tihiMAS, after due consWeratton. the board makes the folloainS rasolucion and ftnding of 18C9 l Area variance for a front yard setback from. 25 ' to 5 , second front yard setback from 25 , to 0 ' and side yard setback from 8 ' to 01 , be granted for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty that would result in significant economic injury if the variance were not granted because it is not economically feasible to relocate the building. ' 2. The applicant has demonstrated that this ..action is .the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship for the same reasons as set -:for.th in No. 1 . 3. The granting of this area variance will not have an adverse impact on the essential character of the neighborhood because the building► has .exizted: in its present location since its construction prior to 1961. i L?aEed� AEEiJ 27 19 94 .. : ADOP U D by the t0110winb votel ' a AYES NAYbi 0 MOTI©N APPROVED G� - F _ - �t . k I e '....„ 146 ��rccJroUrke> i/2°IRR�U��K�A T - _ 1 __ PROP_EIauHE REIRTS Lot , � 4,274 s.f.cl-O .f -O Lot 2 O OLgqt 0.09 3 0.09 p 3 73 s .or I 4,1I' s.f.or 8 a ,�8 I I �b.089 ac. 5 ac. II I - I I I it I I I y I 11 _ II T I I I I II I i I r I I I l� r Lp f o o ;! o 0I 2i 9.99 i 1 i j 1 i i R,9'. P. — EXI LING HEG REhWN,z ESEi s s ro , �P K' I I I I 15 I 1 PROPERtt LrvE �S �t L —-- — — SITE STATISTICS The LA GROUP - - - - - --- TOTALAREA: 0.282ACRES - LAND TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO(3)LOTS TAX MAP PARCEL NUMBER: 165.6632 x, ZONING: UR-2,URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREA VARIANCES REQUIRED Mary Aloy& PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE REQUIRED Exiseno Pmposed Relief Rec—ted Gary QUlrion �r 190-199 Grant Ave. O LOT 1,CORNER SIDE YARD 10' - p,p (ip) Saraluya 5pnnys,NY 12666 T ism Llxg�I sereac{c O LOT 2,SIDE YARD SETBACK 17 0.01 (12') F I O LOT 2,SIDE YARD SETBACK B' - 0.0' W Lot 1 O O L.- O O Z 2 - L Zt 3 LOT 2,TOTAL SIDE YARD 2D' - 0.0' (20') 0.098 p _.. rJ373 s.fc. ' 4,15 s.l.o acJ �00 089 c M I p:95 ac r jw O LOT 3,BIDE YARD SETBACK 17 - 0.0' (12') LOT 3,TOTAL SIDE YARD 20' - 0.0' (20') ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REQUIRED Er1.1im Proposed Relief Reo—Md O LOT 3,SIDE YARD SETBACK 6' CA, - (4.91 _ I � IPeE.Ebanxc ucucourosMlucl f� j I OLOT 3,REAR YARD SETBACK 6' 0.0' - (61 (P�'�xnnNO ucurnumsn+xal �L-J 1 1 REQUIRED LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 MIN.LOT SIZE SF: 88005E 42745E 3 ( ) ,8735E 4,1625E (2,3283F) (2,7273F) (2,448 SF) MIN,AVERAGE WIDTH(FT) '.� . 60 Fr 28'(3Z) 26'(34') 2T(33') firR ra. r ! - - 190-194 T MAX.BUILDING COVERAGE: 4D% 1,713 SF Grand Ave. � I 41.3%(1.3%) it r I 1 L I r�� 19R194 Grant Avc. MAX.EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVER 70% 31775E 29865E 32138E 3% I II I II L _ - - 7 Saratoga Spnng;NY 1I666�- 74. 76.6% 77.4% I 1 (4.3%) (6.6%) (7.4%) U O / 8 G I OTM 1 I I 1 I lO I I I 1 I R 1 II 'y 1 ` - J ff 1 II — I 1 - M++�irse. rc nxcsxEo is a-xwry II ss _L LEGEND ~ , PROPERLY LINE K I'' �axTM — II III I J < ABPHALTPAVEMENT 0 O Sketch Plan YARD SETBACK KEY „ c. ---- SMONDR—RFRRMING ® SK-1 AREA VARIANCES REQUIRED PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE REQUIRED Existing Proposed Relief Requested 0 LOT 1,CORNER SIDE YARD 10, 0.0' (10') O D LOT 2,SIDE YARD SETBACK 12' 0.0' (12') O O LOT 2,SIDE YARD SETBACK 8' 0.0' (81) O LOT 2,TOTAL SIDE YARD 20' - 0.0' (20') O LOT 3,SIDE YARD SETBACK 12' 0.0' (12) O LOT 3,TOTAL SIDE YARD 20' 0.0' (20') O ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REQUIRED Existing Proposed Relief Requested LOT 3,SIDE YARD SETBACK 5' 0.1' (4.9') O (PRE-FARTING NON-CCNFORMING) QLOT 3,REAR YARD SETBACK 5' (5') (PRE-EXISTING NON-CONFORMING) REQUIRED LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 MIN.LOT SIZE (SF): 6,600 SF 4,274 SF O 3,873 SF 4,152 SF (2,326 SF) (2,727 SF) 10 (2,448 SF') 11 MIN.AVERAGE WIDTH(FT): 60 FT 28'(32') 1' 26'(34') 1 27 (33) 14 MAX.BUILDING COVERAGE: 40% - - 1,713 SF 41.3%(1.3%) 1) MAX.EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVER 70% 3,177 SF 2,966 SF 3,213SF 74.3% 16 76.6% 17 77.4% 1b (4.3%) (6.6%) (7.4%) 4 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 4.0. a#. ! 3.073 M.or I 4,152i s.c a 21 48 0.089 ac. 0.095 00. i l f ,p[ i " i i I s I 1 R1P. - The LA GROUP 4 a � Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 a,27a s.*. or JI 3 b 7 J.ar a,t 571.1 ar i 0.098 os i O �089 uc. I 0.095 dt. 1 1 -]4UrF i i O '© I s I 1 L---- --- _ — .� - The LA GROUP 4 Lot 1 Lot 2 ' Lot 3 i �.274 s.f.4 or , 3,p7S J.ar ('2 I 4,i 52i s.f.of i 0.098 0 0.089 ac. `f 0.095 dt. i � I I i L i i �- i i i d '© I s I 1 R1P. - _ _ Y28SE1BAP�'.— _. -5 _ �EgBiPKi&r�TO R91P11 -s.-�-- - The LA GROUP 4 Lot 1 I I Lot 2 I _ Lot 3 4,274 s.f. or ! 3173 P.f.ar I 4.157111c or 0.098 oY r," � .089 oc- 0.095 Co. I I � i �L - i i �- i i i d '© �� 1 � O O I s I 1 R1P. - _ _ Y28SErBAP�'.— _. -5 _ �EgBiPKi&PTO R91P11 - The LA GROUP 4 -= - - Lot 1 Lot 2 Lat 3 s,274 s.*. or 1 3.073 M.or 152i s.f-a 0.098 oY i 0.089 oc. I 0.095 00. I � L i i d '© I s I 1 R1P. - _ _ Y28SErBAP�'.— _- -5 _ �EgBiPKi&PTO R91P11 L---- -- _ — .� - The LA GROUP 4 Lot 1 Lot 2 ' Lat 3 11.274 s.f. or 1 3.073 M.or i52 s.f.or 0.098 oY i _ 0.089 oc. i �0.095 00. - � I I i �- i i i I s I 1 R1P. - _ _ --Wt m &v — _. -5 _ �EgBiPKi&r�TO R91P11 1B L---- -- _ - .� r,ParEalytft '-L--- - -s.-�-- - The LA GROUP 4 � r i r Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 4,274 s.*. or , 3.073 M.or I 4,1571 s.f.or O.o98 oY _ 0.089 ac. 0.095 00. ZI i —r-r—rrr—r—+—r- i i i sf 1 7 R1P. - _ _ Y28SErBAP�'.— _. -5 _ �EgBiNG&fD TO 183N11 L---- -- _ - .� r,ParEalytft '-L--- - -s.-�-- - The LA GROUP 4 � r i r Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 4,274 s.*. or , 3.073 M.or I 4,1571 s.f.or O.o98 oY _ 0.089 ac. 0.095 00. ZI i i i I s I 1 R1P. Y28SErBAP�'.— _. y _ �EgBiPKi&r�TO R91P11 L---- -- _ - �� r,ParEarvtft '-L--- - -s.-�-- - $ The LA GROUP �Y q _ _ _ PROPERTY IIE Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 4,274 s.#. Pr I 3.073 M.or I 4,1521.1 a 0.098 ac: 0,089i ac. I 0.095 0c- 6 I —J Lilli i I I 0 � � 1 i I 0 Q I aRe,'nV- 1 I I I I fP4P.1W 1 >�TORElNN I 1 -- The LA GROUP PROPERTY Ilff . Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 4,274 s.f. cr 1 3,973 M.ar I 4,1571.1 or 0.098 oY 0.089 ac- 0.095 Co. i 10 \ f = 1 j 0 Ll j 13 � " I I II ! 11 � I I i rrry i < I 1 I I I �EOO.Tw C 17 1 j I 1E�,� ro RIP. PRe}PERYV Eu.E _— m The LA GROUP , Lot 1 Loi 2 Lat 3 4.274 s.f. or I 3A73 0.098 oY o C7.0$9 ac. , 0.095 cc- I 11 I j I 14 11 � Irrr� i d I(D —gw TP gl 1 I I a l I 1 I 9 ! ! I lro _ The LA GROUP #1 . 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. ■ No change to structure or accessory shed ■ Applicants' desire to maintain building footprint and exterior in current condition ■ Modify interior only, converting from five apartments to three single-family residences ■ No opportunity to purchase additional land 27 #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. ■ No change in character in the neighborhood ■ Reduction in density ■ Facilitate opportunity for three single-family units that are privately owned 28 M. Whether the variance is substantial. The requested variance is not substantial for the following reason. ■ Acknowledge need for 18 variances largely driven by Applicants' desire to subdivide to three units and desire to maintain existing storage shed ■ As determined by the 1994 ZBA Board, the property has existing in its current configuration since a time prior to (July 7) 1961 29 #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. ■ There will be no physical or environmental impact on the neighborhood based upon the reduction from 5 units to 3 units and the storage shed remaining in its current location 30 #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 difficulty was self-created based solely on Applicants' desire to reduce units from 5 to 3 in a manner that would provide for individual ownership of each of the three units 31 Apphcation for Area Varl' ances of Mary Aloy and G Quinon for the premises at 190- 194 GAvenue City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals October 24, 2022 Matthew J. Jones, ]Esq. David R. Carr, Jr., RLA Jones Stever LLP The LA Group, Landscape Attorneys At Law Architecture and Engineering, P.C. Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866