HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230905 35 Newton Final Subdivision ZBA NOD, Neighboring Property DimensionsGage Simpson,Chair
OG, CITY OF SARATOGA Brad Gallagher,Vice Chair
Q A
Emily Bergmann
e SPRINGS Cheryl Grey
CIO Brendan Dailey
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Shafer Gatson
John Daley,Alternate
r -
µ
CITY HALL-474 BRoADwAY
Alice Smith,Alternate
cORPORAIf) 1h
SARATOGA SPRINGS,NEwYORK12866
518-587-3550
W W W.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG
20230048
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
Colin Klepetar
58 Newton Ave
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 35 Newton Ave in the City of Saratoga
Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.57-1-60.1 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having
applied for an area variance to permit a subdivision to create two parcels, in the Urban Residential (UR-2)District
and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on March 13th and April 24th, 2023.
In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the Applicants 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
Requirement Proposed Relief Requested
Minimum Average Width:
Lot 1 60' 50'
10' (16.7%)
Minimum Lot Size Lot 1
6600 sf 5750 sf 850 sf(12.9%)
Minimum Average Width:
60' 50'10' (16.7%)
Lot 2
Minimum Lot Size Lot 2 6600 sf 5750 sf 850 sf(12.9%)
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 considered other alternatives, including remodeling the current house on Lot 1. However,
due to extensive mold and other issues in the house purchased"as-is", it was not feasible to continue to
work on the house. The house and garage will be demolished and new houses will be built on Lot I and
Lot 2. The applicant states that the subdivision of the property will allow them to afford to build the
house on Lot 1.
2. The applicant states that the subdivision will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood's
character. While both lots being presented are undersized at 50 feet instead of the required 60 feet,the
applicant provided neighborhood context to show that there are 9 other lots in the surrounding area that
also have a 50 foot frontage—one right next door to the applicant's property, and six directly across the
street and two around the corner on Bensonhurst. Overall,these proposed new lots would be consistent
with neighborhood context. While the Board is generally not in favor of creating non-compliant sized
new lots,the shortfall in total lot size in this case is not significant.
Page 1 of 2
3. The requested variances are not considered substantial. The variances requested are similar in width and
square footage to the majority of surrounding lots per the applicant and per the zoning map from 1902.
Although the average width of both lots will be 10 feet short of the zoning requirement, it is the same or
larger than the neighboring lots to the south, east,northeast and southeast. Additionally,the Board notes
that Lot 1 and Lot 2 being 850 sf smaller than the zoning requirement,the lots will still have the same
square footage as the parcel directly to the south and is similar to the parcels to the east,northeast and
southeast.
4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or
environmental effect on the neighborhood. Per the applicant, any new homes being built on Lot 1 and Lot
2 will meet district zoning requirements. There are already sources to tap into for water, sewer and gas.
Additionally,the applicant states that by meeting the zoning requirements,he will ensure that there is
adequate area for water runoff and drainage. Standard district permeability will be met.
5. The request for relief is a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the
application.
Notes: City Planning Board issued a favorable advisory on April 13, 2023 and concluded a negative declaration
for the SEQR.
It is so moved,April 24th, 2023
Passes by the following votes:
AYES: 5 (G. Simpson, C. Grey, E. Bergmann, B. Dailey, A. Smith,)
ABSTAINED: 1 (S. Gaston)
RECUSED: 1 (B. Gallagher)
NAYES:
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 the Unified
Development Ordinance.
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.
SIGNATURE:04/27/2023
ZCHAIR DATE RECEIVED BY
ACCOUNTS
DEPT.
Page 2 of 2