HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190516 DGD Holdings Residence NOD r CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Bill Moore, Chair
Keith Kaplan, Vice Chair
} *Si `. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Brad Gallagher,Secretary
A Cheryl Grey
F+ ; ' Jerry Luhn
CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY Chris Hemstead
-Q 7*, Lg'$114, SARATOGA SPRINGS,NEW YORK 12866 Suzanne Morris
.+ PH)5 I8-587-3550 Fx)5 I8-580-9480
Kathleen O'Connor,alternate
'io
, � WW
'\G' VV .SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG
ED
#20190516
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
DGD Holdings
228 Church St
Saratoga Springs NY 12866
from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at Lot 19, Shaw Drive in the City of
Saratoga Springs,New York being tax parcel number 178.52-1-28 on the Assessment Map of said City.
The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the
construction of a single-family residence in an Urban Residential-2 District and public notice having been duly
given of a hearing on said application held on the 17th day of June through the 22nd day of July, 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
MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL BUILDING 30% 38.8% 8.8%OR 29.3%
COVERAGE 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's representative, in order to stay within 30%coverage and still have an attached garage,
the plan would not still include the master suite on the first floor, which the applicant wants to keep in
place if at all possible. Another option pointed out by the representative was to look at eliminating the
sunroom or part or all of the garage. These would diminish greatly the utility of the house. The Board
notes that if the garage was detached, about 650 or so square feet would be removed from this proposal,
making it almost comply. However, that would leave 10% of lot coverage available for accessory
structures; the result would be the same total coverage, simply split between principal and accessory
structures. Looking at the proposal holistically, the condition imposed below to not have accessory
structures beyond 1.2% (about 90 SF) leaves the property with the same coverage in total if the garage
had been detached.
2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in
neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant notes that the relief recently
granted for Lot 7 was for 39.7%, and that several of the other lots being developed in the surrounding
area are above the 30%lot coverage. The Board notes that this lot is in the range,but in the higher end of
the range in the area. The Board further notes the fact that the garage area is attached, and therefore part
of the principal building calculation and part of the need for relief in this case. This, along with the
condition imposed below on accessory coverage, supports the reasonableness of the applicant's request
for relief, in terms of neighborhood character and context.
3. The Board notes this requested setback variance, at 29.3%, is substantial, however the impact of the
substantiality is mitigated by the combination of neighborhood context cited above, and the limitation to
be placed on future accessory structures as per the condition below.
4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or
district. The application shows greater than required 25%permeability, and total lot coverage will still be
within district requirements.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed residence,
but this is not necessarily fatal to the application.
Condition: Any future accessory structure is limited to 1.2% lot coverage - approximately 90 SF.
Adopted by the following vote:
AYES: 7 (K. Kaplan, S. Morris, J. Luhn, B. Gallagher,K. O'Connor, B. Moore, C. Grey)
NAYE S: 0
Dated: July 22, 2019
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 240-8.5.1.
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.
f. .. .
iitallW
•
_ *l f
SIGNATURE: oh �• ~ ' 'Y . . 4-s. �r 07/23/2019
CHAIR DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.