HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190863 Beyer Residence Comparable Variances •
- )(,•
•\
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS BUL tavtiort
Cke44.4-
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
C. 41.
iir" Cita.Or
C4 TY HALL — 474 13ROAPwAL:'
Acke-tv.
•
SARA1r0A SPRINGS, NE YORK. 12866 Ste-reat-ey
H) Si-8-5-s7-3 55-0 Px) gig-580 948o 4a4-91-fc44,-(ov4.,'k,
eAcirger,."Sk#L1,--'' C4440v,
vAvvV.SA RA 7-0CA—SP RI NC5.0 P.4
LIA-ctet-
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
MATT RHODES
115 WALNUT STREET
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866
From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 115 Walnut Street in the
City of Saratoga Springs,New York. being tax parcel number 165.65-2-14 in the Inside Tax District,on
the Assessment Map of said City.
The appellant having applied for an area variance for construction of an addition to an existing front
porch, seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback and lot coverage requirements in the Urban
Residential-2 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on June
23, 2014.
In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety
and welfare of the community, I move that the following variance for the following amount of relief:
Required: Proposed: Total relief requested:
Minimum front yard setback: 10 feet 0 feet I inch 10 feet (100%)
Maximum principal building 30% 30,6% 31.6% E6%
coverage:
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.The
application states that -any addition to the front of this house would require a variance-and-alternatives
would require similar relief." Increasing the setback to the porch addition might also negatively impact the
function of the proposed porch.
2.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in
neighborhood character,or detriment to nearby properties. The application notes that-the porch will be in
keeping with existing architectural details on the building and that adjacent houses also have full front
porches,"some of which do not appear to meet current setback requirements. The house is also situated
on a corner lot more than 40 feet from any adjacent structure on Walnut Street, limiting the impact to
nearby properties.
3.)The variance may be considered substantial: however, the existing front yard setback and maximum
principal building coverage are preexisting nonconforming. The proposed variance for maximum
principal building coverage exceeds the existing amount by only 1 percent. The existing porch encroaches
x
over the property line and is in the City's right of way.The proposed porch addition is stepped back to be
located wholly on the property,thereby mitigating the extent of the front yard setback variance.
4.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or
environmental effect on the neighborhood. The applicant has stated that 51 %of the site would remain
permeable, exceeding the district's 25 percent permeability requirement.
•
5.) The request for relief may be considered a sei f-created hardship. However, self-creation is not
necessarily fatal to the application.
Notes:
Applicant shall remove existing aluminum fence from the cityls right of way or seek an easement from the
City.
Design Review Commission Architectural Review is required.
Adopted by the following vote:
AYES: 6 (B.Moore, K. Kaplan, A. McNeil,G. Hasbrouck, S. Carlson and J.lielicke)
NAYES: 0
Dated: June 23, 2014
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 pe 40-8.5.1.
_.
Date Chair
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, six members of the Board
being present.
RECEIVED
,JN 2 ; 2014
Acr\-- '-nr-PAR-rmisto
13/11 Moore, C"hair
,
, CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
,
Keith Kaplan, Vice Chair
i illiL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
... Brad Gallagher,Secretary
Susan Steer
tir,4 Cheryl Grey
CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY
-- 11‘ 1 - Jerry Luhn
,-Iqp SARATOGA SPRINGS,NEW YORK I 2866
PH)518-587-3550 PO 518-580-9480 Chris Hernstead
Rebecca Kern,alternate
NAPA%SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG
Kathleen O'Connor,alternate
43078
IN 'ME MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF RECgPri ,
I-1 VE0
Scott and Lisa Grimmett
30 Joseph Street
Saratoga Springs,NY 12866 Accon
L'Ivrs ler?.
From a determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises located at 30 Joseph9i i4-en
the City of Saratoga Springs. New York. tax parcel number 165.82-1-74 on the Assessment Map. of
said City.
The Applicant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit
the existing single-family residence to exceed the maximum lot coverage in a UR-2 District and public
notice having been duly given of hearings on said application held on January 7 and 28. 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 variances for the following amount of
relief:
_.... ..
TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED
REQUIREMENT
_..
--4---- —
MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL BUILDING COVERAGE 30% 30.7% 0.7%(23%) _
As per the submitted documents, or lesser dimensions,he APPROVED for the following reasons:
1. The Board finds the Applicant demonstrated the benefit sought cannot be achieved by other
means feasible to the Applicant. The residence has already been constructed and would require
the expenditure of significant capital to correct the error relating to the soffit overhangs.
Accordingly, the correction of the soffit overhangs is not fcusiblc.
2. The Board finds the soffit overhang error to he minimal and will not have an undesirable change
in the neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties.
3. The Board finds the relief requested for maximum principal building coverage of 0.7%or 2.3%
is not considered substantial.
4. The Board finds that the variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental
effect on the neighborhood or district. The soffit overhangs project less than 6" into the
coverage area.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the Applicant, but this is not necessarily fatal to
the application.
It is so moved h) B. Gallagher; seconded by C. Grey.
Adopted by the following vote:
•
AYES: 6 B. Moore. K. Kaplan. B. Gallagher. S. Steer, C. Grey, R. Kern-Alt.).
NAYES: 0
Dated: Januar) 28, 2019
I hereb) cert if) the above to be a lull, true and correct cop) of a resolution duly adopted b the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the City of Saratoga Springs on the date above mentioned, six members of the Board being present.
41111.*
1.40 014111M
SioNATURL: 1/28;2019
Cl LAIR DA rE
v Or; 1
I-N -
BLI.L Mer&re,
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
...
auu..-
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Ke.414,a Kepto...,
.-.'
C4TY HALL -474 13ROAPWAY
. ._.›. .
SARATOCA 5PRIN4S, NEW YORK 1286,6 See-re/tie-9
P ) 51-8-587-3550 FX) 518 -580-q4-80 Ce4-ryl-ia44,rov-cAcf
. .."-re.."Skipli C444..cri,
MAAAL SARATOCA-5PRINGS.0 RC;
0441.4.Lvida,
Ja4m„e4.,1-1ttLe4ck
Appeal #2763 Doherty Addition
EN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL Of.
Amy& Jeff Doherty
195 West Circular Street
Saratoga Springs,New York 12866
from the Building Inspector's denial for the premises at 195 West Circular Street, Saratoga Springs, New
York,identified as Tax Parcel No.: 165.73-2-37 in the inside district of the City.
The Applicants have applied for an area variance for construction of a two-story two—car garage to be
attached to an existing single-family residence: seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback and
maximum principal building coverage requirements in an Urban Residential-2 zoning district, and public
notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on May 12, 2014 and May 19, 2014.
In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the Applicants with the detriment to the health,
safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution that the requested area
variances for the following relief or lesser dimensions,as described in the submitted application and plans.BE
APPROVED:
Type of Requirement Required . Proposed Total Relief
___ Requested
Minimum Side Yard 8 feet 3.25 feet 4.75 feet
Setback (59%)
Maximum principal i
,
30% 31.25% 1.25%
building coverage (4%)
1. The Applicants have demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible.There
is no additional land available for purchase. Applicants have indicated that the construction of the two-car
garage replaces an existing car port and an attached shed which was located closer to the side yard lot line than
the proposed location of the new two-car garage. Other configurations to construct a garage for two vehicles
were explored and none were feasible. Additionally,the Applicants considered the option of a driveway off
West Circular and due to traffic and other considerations this option was determined to be less desirable and
potentially dangerous verses maintaining the driveway off of Birch Street.
•
2. The Applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in
neighborhood character or a detriment to nearby properties.As indicated above,the construction of the two-
car garage replaces an existing car port and shed and will create additional side yard space from that existing
prior to this renovation. As such,granting the variance will not have a negative impact on nearby properties.
3. The side yard setback relief requested may be considered substantial,but is mitigated by the fact that
other options are less desirable and might result in the creation of safety issues. The maximum principal
building coverage at an increase of 4%would not be considered substantial.
4. The Applicants have demonstrated that the variance will not have a significant adverse physical or
environmental effect on the neighborhood. Because the existing car port is pre-existing, while the overall
variance may appear to have a significant impact on the neighborhood, the improvement to the physical
structure will enhance the appearance of the structure on this property. Additionally,with the addition of the
two-car garage, the percentage of permeability will be 31.5%, which exceeds the minimum required 25%
permeability.
5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created in that the Applicants desire to construct a two-
car garage at this location on the property,this is not necessarily fatal to the application.
Neighbor Input: Adjoining homeowner letter supporting new construction.
Adopted by the following vote:
AYES: 4 (K. Kaplan, G. Hasbrouck, S. Carlson and O. Ludd)
NAYES: Helicke)
Dated: May 19th, 2014
This variance shall expire 18 months following the filing date of such decision unless the necessary
building permit has been issued and actual constructior:begun as per 240-8.5.1_
9 2_0 I
Date Chair
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.
RECEIVED
MAY 2 I £0 ..
ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT