Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190029 Val-Kill Properties NOD kri 0G4 CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Bill Moore, Chair Keith Kaplan, Vice Chair } `. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Brad Gallagher,Secretary Cheryl Grey ; ' Jerry Luhn '► it CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY Chris Hemstead SARATOGA SPRINGS,NEW YORK 12866 Suzanne Morris + PH)5 I8-587-3550 Fx)5 I8-580-9480 Kathleen O'Connor,alternate ' IED '' WVWV.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG #20190029 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Val-Kill Properties North LLC 67 Catherine St Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the Building Inspector's determination involving an accessory structure at 40 Second St., in the City of Saratoga Springs,New York,being Tax Parcel 165.36-2-10 on the assessment map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit a second principal building on a single lot in a UR-2 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on March 4 through July 22, 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 amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REQUIREMENT MAX. PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS ON I 2 I (100%RELIEF) ONE LOT MINIMUM SETBACK-REAR 25' 0.5' 24.5' (98%RELIEF) MINIMUM LOT SIZE-SECOND 6600 SF 0 SF 6600 SF(100% SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RELIEF) MINIMUM LOTWIDTH-SECOND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 60' 0' 60' (100%RELIEF) MINIMUM SETBACK-SIDE 8' 2' 6' (75%RELIEF) MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL BUILDING 30% 38.1% 8.1%(27% COVERAGE RELIEF) MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT, 4 PARKING SPACES 3 PARKING I PARKING SPACE TWO PRINCIPAL RESIDENCES SPACES (25%RELIEF) As per the application materials submitted to date,be denied as per this Board's consideration of the following factors: Background: The applicants have noted that the main building on the subject parcel is used as a rental property, and the second proposed principal building that is the subject of these relief requests was advertised by the Realtor as a "garage home office or in-law"when the applicant purchased the parcel. The applicants further note that they inquired through their attorney before closing on the sale, as to whether the garage apartment was legally permissible. They represent that they had not yet gotten an answer to that question and did not receive a response from the City that the garage apartment was illegal,until after the closing of the purchase of the property. The applicants note their acquisition date of August 1,2017, and that they received that response from the City on August 16, 2017. They further note that work to renovate the apartment space began immediately after purchase date, and was in progress as of September 27,when a Stop Work order was issued by the City. 1. The Board finds the amounts of relief to be extremely substantial. This applies particularly to the number of principal buildings, the lot size,the lot width, and the rear setback- all of which are total or almost total relief. In this case of such massive substantiality, the Board looked for mitigating factors, such as visual buffering, or placement of the parcel adjacent to an unbuildable or protected area. The Board found no such mitigating factors to apply in this case. As per the applicant's counsel,there is insufficient room on the parcel between the subject garage/cottage building and the property line for vegetative or other buffering to be feasibly inserted. The parking and principal coverage relief, while not insubstantial, are far less substantial relative to district requirements, compared to these other areas. Furthermore: • Parking substantiality can theoretically be possibly mitigated by the applicant's stated willingness to be conditioned to a limit of three parking spaces. • Principal coverage substantiality could theoretically be limited by a condition to restrict the size of future accessory structures. However,the unmitigated substantiality of the other areas of relief remain a serious area of concern to the Board. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The Board notes that the applicant is requesting approval for a second principal residence on a lot that is very much undersized for the UR 2 district as it is. The UR-2 requirements call for 6600 square feet of space for a principal residence, and this proposal asks for two principal residences to be accommodated on a lot 3 521 SF in size. Looking at the UR-2 district intent, it states, "To provide medium density single family residential uses where public infrastructure is available."The Board finds that placing two principal buildings on an already undersized lot would be inconsistent with neighborhood density objectives, an important component of neighborhood character. Furthermore, the applicant/appellant seems to contend that it is difficult to prove detrimental impact to neighborhood resulting from continuation of any existing condition. This argument would mean that an owner could build or commence a truly harmful use unlawfully and then claim that,because it is already in existence, it's continuation through subsequent authorization would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The Board is neither inclined to nor supportive of adopting this reasoning which would, among other things, serve to encourage unlawful construction and uses. The Board further notes that the shortfall of off-street parking that would occur with allowing two residences on this parcel would be detrimental to the neighborhood as well, however it is noted that one parking space is not considered substantial, as noted above. In addition,the Board notes that it has received correspondence from neighbors expressing opposition based on concerns about the effect on the immediate neighborhood. 1 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Ordinance section 2.1,table 1,retrieved 6/2/19 Finally, the Board notes that if the existing garage apartment area was to be modified to be limited to office or studio space, while that would require a zoning variance,which might or might not be granted, it would be in greater conformity with district intent, as the parcel's residential density would be that of a single family residence,with a greater consistency with neighborhood density objectives. 3. The applicants have demonstrated the benefit sought in their proposal cannot be achieved by other means feasible to them, insofar as they seek two principal residences on one lot, and the existing garage/cottage is already in existence at the location near the rear and side property lines. However, there are other alternatives that can pursued for the current accessory structure. As noted above, since there is already an installed habitable space in that structure, it could be modified from an apartment area to an office or studio space, subject to the granting of a zoning variance to allow habitable space. The Board notes that if such a variance was to be granted, it would likely be conditioned on the removal of cooking and bathing facilities, and the disallowance of overnight stays in that space. Furthermore, as noted by the applicant, another alternative is to connect the garage to the house, and make it part of the principal structure. This, too, would require variances, in the form of principal coverage and side and rear setback. However, it would require fewer, and less impactful variances than the ones listed above, and it would add living space to the currently rentable house. 4. The Board does find these variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. Permeability does not appear to be an issue in this case, and footprint of the home and accessory structures, as well as the effect of the limited degree of habitable space requirements, do not appear to have significantly adverse physical or environmental effects. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicants knew, or should have known,that the usage of the garage apartment was not permitted before purchasing the property. Furthermore, the applicants have acknowledged that they continued renovation work on the apartment space until they received the Stop Work order, one month and eleven days after having received the response from the City that the space was not a legal rental apartment. While self-creation by itself is not fatal to an area variance application, it is relevant to the decision when considered with the other factors above. Adopted by the following vote: AYES: 6 (K. Kaplan, C. Grey, S. Morris, J. Luhn, B. Gallagher, K. O'Connor) NAYE S: 0 Dated: July 22, 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. 41111111111*' SIGNATURE: s. 07/23/2019 CHAIR DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.