HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230921 42 Schuyler Drive area variance NOD �f0G' CITY OF SARATOGA Gage Simpson,Chair
�A Brad Gallagher,Vice Chair
!�d Cheryl Grey SPRINGS Shafer Gaston
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Brendan Dailey
1 = Jonah Cohen
Otis Maxwell
CITY HALL-474 BROADwAY Alice Smith,Alternate
�RPORATVD 19 SARATOGA SPRINGS,NEW YORK12866
518-587-3550
W W W.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG
#20230921
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
Jacob and Emily Burby
42 Schuyler Drive
Saratoga Springs NY 12866
from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 42 Schuyler Drive in the City of Saratoga
Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.14-1-20.1, in the Urban Residential -1 (UR-1) District on the
Assessment Map of said City.
This being an application for an area variance under the Unified Development Ordinance of said City to permit
the expansion of a single family residence within the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District,and public
notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held from November 20t1i to December 11,2023.
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 variances for the following amounts of relief:
TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED
MAX PRINCIPAL COVERAGE 28% 33% 5%OR 17.9%RELIEF
FRONT YARD SETBACK 30FT 19.5FT 10.5FT OR 35%RELIEF
REAR YARD SETBACK 3 OFT 17.8FT 12.2FT OR 40%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.
Per the applicant, the proposed home size is consistent with other homes in the neighborhood and the
relief needs are primarily being triggered by the substandard lot size and the orientation of the home in
the front yard.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting these variances will not create an undesirable change in
neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant notes several other homes in
the neighborhood have similar front yard setbacks. The applicant further notes that the existing home is
within the setbacks and the small addition would not drastically affect the profile of the home.The board
notes the applicant provided comparable homes and lots that were useful in further understanding the
neighborhood context.
3. The Board notes that the requested variances are substantial,but this is mitigated by the factors described
above.
4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood
or district. District permeability requirements will be met.
Page 1 of 2
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as it is motivated by the applicant's desire to expand the
existing single family home but this is not necessarily fatal to the application.
It is so moved. Dated: December 11, 2023
Passes by the following votes:
AYES: 5 (G. Simpson, B. Gallagher, B. Dailey, S. Gaston, J. Cohen,)
RECUSED:
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: 12/14/2023
or CHAIR DATE RECEIVED BY
ACCOUNTS
DEPT.
Page 2 of 2