Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20240864 81 Phila Application **HANDWRITTEN APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED" F R FricE e CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS (AppEication#) d ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS A , CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY (Date received) f SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866-2296 TEL: 518-587-3550 X2533 www.saratoga-springs.org (Project Title) APPLICATION FOR: INTERPRETATION, USE VARIANCE' Chock it PH Required AREA VARIANCE AND/OR VARIANCE EXTENSION Staff Review APPLICANT(S)* OWNER(S) (lf not? pplicant) ATTORNEY/AGENT Name Torn&Paula D'Orazio Same Robert L. Flansburg 15 East Cobble Hill Road 6 Meghan Court Address Loudonville, N.Y. 12211 Saratoga Springs, N.Y 12866 Phone (518)-365-0289 / (51 g)-935-32$5 1 / lonimac@AOL.com Dreamscapes.l@live.com Email Primary Contact Person: ©✓Applicant FlOwner VAttorneylAgent * An applicant must be the property owner,lessee,or one with an option to lease or purchase the property in question. Applicant's interest in the premises; ®Owner ❑ Lessee ❑ Under option to lease or purchase PROPERTY INFORMATION 81 Phila Street 165 68 1 34 1. Property Address/Location: Tax Parcel No.: (for-example: 165.52—4—37) June 20, 2024 UR-4 2. Date acquired by current owner: 3.Zoning District when purchased: Vacant Lot UR-4 4. Present use of property:_ 5. Current Zoning[District: _ 6. Has a previous ZBA applicationlappeal been filed for this property? ®Yes(when? )- I„ 1 a 2022 For what?Area Variances } m No 7. Is property located within (check all that apply)?: ® Historic District ❑Architectural Review District ❑ 500'of a State Park,city boundary,or county/state highway? PRIOR OWNER DECIDED TO SELL_THE LOT TO THE APPLICANTS AS $iEBrief description of proposed action: DECIDED NOT TO BUILD ON THIS LOT. UNFORTUNATELY THE PRIOR OWNER MOST LIKELY LOST FOCUS ON THE DATE THE VARIANCES EXPIRED AND DID NOT RENEW THE VARIANCE PRIOR TO SELLING THE LOT TO THE CURRENT APPLICANTS. THE INTENT WAS TO SELL THE CURRENT APPLICANTS THE REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCES. 9. Is there an active written violation for this parcel? ❑Yes 91 No 10. Has the work, use or occupancy to which this appeal relates already begun? Q Yes 1Z No 11. Identify the type of appeal you are requesting(checle all that apply): ❑ INTERPRETATION(p. 2) R VARIANCE EXTENSION(p. 2) ❑ USE VARIANCE(pp. 3-6) ❑AREA VARIANCE(pp.6-7) Revised 01/2021 ZONING BDARO OFAPPFAL5APPtic4 rrcNFoRM PAGE 2 INTERPRETATION—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary): I. Identify the sections)of the:honing Ordinance for which you are seeking an interpretation: Section(s) 2. How do you request that this section be interpreted? 3. If interpretation is denied,do you wish to request alternative zoning relief? []Yes ❑Rio 4. If the answer to#3 is"yes,"what alternative relief do you request?® Use Variance ❑Area Variance EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary): July 1$,2022 1. Date original variance was granted: 2. Type of variance granted? ❑ Use m Area 3. Date original variance expired: January 18, 2024 5. Explain why the extension is necessary.Why wasn't the original timeframe sufficient? The prior owner,who obtained the variances,and DRS approval to build a home on this lot,elected not to build his home and sell the lot to the current owners.This sale took some time,as the current owner changed his mind at some point and hold onto the lot,only to change his rnind again,and sell the 161 to the applicants. During this time,the prior owner lost focus,and didnot renew the variances prior to their expiration.The prior owner sold the lot with all approvals,and sold the design of the approved house and approved detached gmrMoe. When requesting an extension of time for an existing variance,the applicant must prove that the circumstances upon which the original variance was granted have not changed. Specifically demonstrate that there have been no significant changes on the site, in the neighborhood,or within the circumstances upon which the original variance was granted: THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES TO THE LOT OR STREET WHICH CHANGE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UPON WHICH THE ORIGINAL VARIANCES WERE GRANTED.THE APPLICANTS INTEND TO BUILD WITHIN THE APPROVED FOOTPRINT AND Revised 0 112021 4 WIAh':RLIARv tX MY-vSAM.1,A?&W FLV,?-i PAGF.S DI5CkOSURE Doll ally("Il.y Uff f'f;l',r'trY(fli�y;i iv family II I1:111Ibr'I'tlh_I' -f(IIVi?a(it I'm le'ill Ill etosa(.14(lalliwt)Ily(N.l)(!fii€f jlallia()it)€.IW S(.QjUl'1 809)in this,applcation! O No (]Ye5 If"yes a statement disc€osing the name,residence and nature and extent of this interest must tw filed w€th this application. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION VW(-%the prblserty owner(s),or Oat+rchaser(s)(ic sees)undca•contract,of the find 1n cfuostton,hereby rer.jumt-an:q>i,t2arm-,cc bcfoe e the Zoning Board of Appeals. By the signature(s)attached hereto,Iiwe certify that the information provided within this application and accompanying doeumetttation is,to the hest of my(our knowtedgIr.,true and accurAC.Irwe further understand that intemionally providing false or n1I510ding uilormaclon IS grounds for Ilmtled{ake denial of this application. Furthermore,.itwr-hereby aurhor-izo thin minmfxlrs of the Zoning Beard of Appeals and desipnaied City staff to enter the property associated with this application(err pui poses of conducting any nocessary site inspections relaung to this appeAL L7;+tom: ��lpplie:rnC s`iPnsltull�] Dare.: �.,{I)I)IlL.11 It 31b!I i.{tilt�� If applicant is not the currently the ow ter of the pit, ,the:cYl- n w{ber must also sign. Owllul Sij;nalllr.:. ` .. r D,iw: ,e �n er C P d•. ! f uh flIANCL }' LAl ,.�Y R V f `� I °• �"�n.. _ - -- may` ,r„o . i i y i J1 t� E r 9 1 � � 1 I 1 � h Y� � � I r'•'•'s sii'•� � •'•�,i•rii s' r� c i AWMW CL -C3 i S a Ln cc r , wa j.t . • f • ♦ 4 ' � f r -- 4 } 4 r� 1 �! Y k 4'ice n - F � r . F � j i r f u — ---- S -1p-10 -00II - - r✓-O = _- - - — — ------ I I i I 181-0�� I 21'-0" X 21'-O" DETACHED I i j GARAGE (484 S.F.) ---------------------------------------- ----------------- I i I i I i I i * LANDINS DOOR a STFPS I i Oj O O i i O i i 4-OBI I W I I CV 6" OHIGn N N z j A.G. UNIT i � I i I i PROPOSED j TWO-FAMILY I i j RESIDENCE (30'-0" X 481—SII) LU 3 a I � z I a fy Q w° O " I (Y Q I I PLANTING BED /W/BENCH) LANDSCAPED WALL -- - i n i u AT - - - - - - N -10-101-0011 W SO -p O FRONT STEPS SITE PLAN SCALE:1/4"=I'-O" 0cq df Gage Simpson, Chair r� CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair ..' J ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Emily Bergmann t ❖ Justin Farrington iOr CITY HALL- 474 BROADWAY Cheryl Grey .'�c�Rf'ORASEU 9` SARATOGASPRINGs,NEw PORK 12866 Matthew Gutch 518-587-3550 Brendan Dailey WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORC John Daley,Alternate Alice Smith. Alternate #20220487 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Scot Trifilo 54 Nelson Avenue Saratoga Springs NY 12866 In the matter of the appeal from the Building Inspector's determination involving a parcel at 81 Phila Street,in the City of Saratoga Springs,New York,being Tax Parcel 165.68-1-34 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 construction of a two-family home on an existing vacant parcel in the URA District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 27`h day of June through the 18`h day of July 2022. 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 PROPOSED RELIEF DIMENSIONAL REQUESTED REQUIREMENT Min Lot Size 6000ft 4978ft 1022ft or 17% Min Avg Width 100ft 50ft 50% Max Principal Coverage% 25% 34% 9%or 36% Minimum. Front Yard Setback 25ft 5ft 20ft or 80%relief Side 1 20ft 4ft 16ft or 80% Side 2 (to stairs only) 20ft 12ft 8ft or 40% Total Side Yard Setback 45ft 16ft 29ft or 64%relief As per the submitted plans or lesser dimension, be approved as per this Board's consideration of the following factors: 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant desires to construct a two-family home on an existing vacant parcel. The applicant noted that without variances the lot would be unusable in UR-4 zoning. Applicant noted that other designs were reviewed but were cost prohibitive and that the current design provided the least amount of required relief. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant noted that the proposed relief will allow for the transformation of an unkempt lot into a new home that will enhance the neighborhood. The house will be in line with neighboring homes on that side of Phila Street which are similar in width, and do not conform to UR-4 zoning in terms of setbacks. The applicant provided neighborhood context of other homes which have similar designs for their nonconforming lots. The applicant noted that great length was takin in the design of the house to ensure the house was architecturally pleasing both visually and as it appears from the street with varying roof sizes. 3. The Board notes the requested variances are substantial. However, the Board notes that the relief requested is mitigated by the neighborhood context and lack of significant adverse impact on the neighboring properties, as noted above. 4. These variances will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The Property will not exceed district requirements for permeability, 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created insofar as the applicant's desire to build a two- family home on an existing vacant parcel,but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. It is so moved,July 18,2022. Adopted by the following vote: AYES: 4(G. Simpson,E. Bergmann,J Farrington, B. Dailey) NAYES: 2 (C. Grey,A Smith) Dated: July 18,2022 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,six members of the Board being present. SIGNATURE: 07/20/2022 4CHA114 R DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT. .� v" s ZONING BOAR® OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) 1f MONDAY,JUNL 27, 2022 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Gage Simpson,Chair,called the meeting to order at 6:31 P M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Gage Simpson,Chair;Cheryl Grey; Emily Bergmann; Matthew Gutch; Brendan Farrington;Alice Smith,Alternate ABSENT: Brad Gallagher,Vice Chair;Justin Farrington STAFF: Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Mark.Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings,the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. ZBA APPLICATIONSNDER CONSIDERATION: NEW BUSINESS: 1. #20220487 81 PHILA STREET AREA VARIANCE, 81 Phila Street,Area Variance to construct a two-family home seeking dimensional relief in the Urban Residential-4(UR-4) District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum Lot Size 6000 4978 ft. 1022 ft.or 17.0% Minimum Average Width 100 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft.or 50.0% Maximum Principal Coverage 25% 34.0 ft. 9.0 ft.or 36.0% Setback—Front 25 5 ft. 20 ft.or 80.0% Side 1 20 ft. 4 ft. 16 ft.or 80.0% Side 2 20 ft. 14 ft. 6 ft.or 30.0% Total Side 45 ft. 18 ft. 27 ft.or 60.0% Applicant Scot Trifilo,Terrace Home Builders.owner Agent. Bob Flansburg, Dreamscapes Unlimited. Mr. Flansburg provided a visual of the site plan noting a detached garage to the left of home. Mr. Flansburg reviewed the project site noting the size and configuration of the lot. Plans were developed based on the assumption this was in a UR-3'District when in fact it is a UR-4 District. Mr Trifllo provided an aerial view of the proposed lot. He provided visuals of neighborhood comparables for the Boards review The new construction will conform with what is there currently and be visually appealing. Matthew Gutch questioned the height of the proposed structure and if it is a one-or two-family home proposed Mr.Flansburg noted it the building will be 30 ft.to the eave and 10 ft.to the ridge.The building will be 40-41 feet in height. Exact calculations will be provided to the Board.An apartment is proposed in the lower level. It will be a two-family structure. Aneisha Samuels,Senior Planner stated the applicant should measure the side setback from the stairs.We need the dimensions from the stairs to the property line.Also confirm if there is egress from this basement apartment which is not impacted by the stairs. Mr.Flansburg stated there is egress from the basement.The stairs will not impede egress from the basement apartment. Matthew Gutch noted the building needs to be sprinklered since it is 3 stories in height.He questions if the applicant had considered any alternative designs and what is the total square footage of the building? Mr.Flansburg stated they have taken everything into consideration in providing the calculations.Other designs were considered for this lot. Square footage calculations will be provided. Cherie Grey stated the applicant will be over on coverage.Are there any accessory structures on the property,or air conditioners,etc., which adds to coverage. Aneisha Samuels,Senior Planner,said the applicant will have 9%coverage left for accessory structures. Mr. Flansburg spoke about coverage and noted that everything is included in the coverage calculations. Cherie Grey said she is pleased to see they are proposing something which fits in and compliments the neighborhood homes. She questioned if the house would have a front porch since all the houses on this side of the street have front porches. Does this application require DRC review? Aneisha Samuels,Senior Planner,said this application requires DRC review. Mr.Trifilo spoke about the front porch and lot constraints.He supplied information on what he is proposing rather than an actual porch. Emily Bergmann said the applicant did a nice job bringing everything together for the proposed structure. She questioned if the lot permeability percentage will be met. Mr. Flansburg said there is no issue with meeting permeability requirements. Gage Simpson, Chair said we are not asking for any additional information simply elevations. PUBLIC HEARING: Gage Simpson,Chair,opened the public hearing at 7:11 P.M. Gage Simpson, Chair,asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Clifford Zaleski, 77 Phila Street.What Mr.Trifilo is proposing is not out of line for the neighborhood and his concern was drainage. He discussed the drainage with Mr.Trifilo, and he explained how the drainage will be resolved with the construction of a retaining wail and the installation of the driveway. He is assured that the drainage will not be an issue. He is supportive of the application. Gage Simpson, Chair,stated the public hearing will remain open until the next meeting scheduled for July 181h. We should have a resolution to present at that time. 2, ##20220477111 WHITE STREET AREA VARIANCE, 111 White Street,Area Variance to demolish existing single-family home and construct a new single-family home in the Urban Residential-3(UR-3) District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum Average Width 60 ft. 50 ft. 10 ft.or 16.7% City of Saratoga Spr rgs-Zoning Board of Appeals—June 27,2022 Page 2 of ll] 54 Nelson Avenue Saratoga Springs NY 12866 In the matter of the appeal from the Building Inspector's determination involving a parcel at 81 Phila Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being Tax Parcel 165.68-1-34 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 construction of a two-family home on an existing vacant parcel in the UR-4 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 271h day of June through the 181h day of July 2022. 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 PROPOSED RELIEF DIMENSIONAL REQUESTED REQUIREMENT Minimum Lot Size 6000ft 4978ft 1022ft or 17% Minimum Avg Width 100ft 50ft 50% Maximum Principal Coverage 25% 34% 9% or 36% Minimum Front Yard Setback 25ft 5ft 20ft or 80% relief Side 1 20ft Oft 16ft or 80% Side 2 (to stairs only } 20ft 12ft 8ft or 40% Total Side Yard Setback 45ft 16ft 29ft or 64% relief As per the submitted plans or lesser dimension, be approved as per this Board's consideration of the following factors: 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant desires to construct a two-family home on an existing vacant parcel. The applicant noted that without variances the lot would be unusable in UR-4 zoning. Applicant noted that other designs were reviewed but were cost prohibitive and that the current design provided the least amount of required relief. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant noted that the proposed relief will allow for the transformation of an unkempt lot into a new home that will enhance the neighborhood. The house will be in line with neighboring homes on that side of Phila Street which are similar in width, and do not conform to UR-4 zoning in terms of setbacks. The applicant provided neighborhood context of other homes which have similar designs for their nonconforming lots. The applicant noted that great length was taken in the design of the house to ensure the house was architecturally pleasing both visually and as it appears from the street with varying roof sizes. 3. The Board notes the requested variances are substantial. However, the Board notes that the relief requested is mitigated by the neighborhood context and lack of significant adverse impact on the neighboring properties, as noted above. 4. These variances will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The Property will not exceed district requirements for permeability. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created insofar as the applicant's desire to build a two-family home on an existing vacant parcel, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Emily Bergmann seconded the motion. Gage Simpson, Chair asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs-Zoning Board of Appeals-July 18,2022-Page 14 of 15 Ms. Yasenchak stated the property was formerly a boarding house. We currently have an existing building permit for interior renovations. The house has been gutted and it will be converted into a one family home. Cherie Grey questioned staff regarding the entire width of the house is still not 20ft. from the property line. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner stated under the current zoning,the entire house is in the setback. No matter what side they build on it would be in the setback and therefore would require a variance. Ms. Yasenchak stated the applicant will return before the Board. PUBLIC HEARING: Gage Simpson, Chair, opened the public hearing at 8:18 P.M- Gage Simpson, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated the public hearing will remain open. The next scheduled ZBA meeting is Monday, .July 25'h, 2022. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, stated part of the property is in the Historic District and part is in the Architectural District. This does not require review by the DRB. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 9. #20220487 81 PHILA STREET AREA VARIANCE, 81 Phila Street, Area Variance to construct a two- family home seeking dimensional relief in the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated this is a previously opened application. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Applicant: Scot Trifilo, Terrace Home Builders, owner Mr. Trifilo stated at the previous meeting we spoke about the site plan. We changed the front planting bed and is reflected in the site plan which was provided. We also provided revised information on the elevations. Cherie Grey questioned if the applicant considered a front porch since it is prevalent in this area. Mr. Trifilo stated he understand the porches are a big part of Saratoga. He likes to bring more plants and more natural plantings to the property. PUBLIC HEARING: Gage Simpson, Chair, stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Gage Simpson, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Gage Simpson, Chair, closed the public hearing at 8:29 P.M. Cherie Grey presented the following resolution. #20220487 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Scot Trifilo City of Saratoga Springs-Zoning Board of Appeals-July 18,2022-Page 13 of 15