HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190804 Israel Residence NOD Keith Kaplan, Chair
rt 0 G4 CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair
} `. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Cheryl Grey
Christopher Mills
.•.
�.� h• ice:
is�w Suzanne Morris
:794,-x, r��� CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY
SARATOGA SPRINGS,NEW YORK 12866 Gage Simpson
Lg
PH)5 I8-587-3550 FX)5 I8-580-9480 Chris Hemstead,alternate
Kathleen O'Connor,alternate
' , � ,'\G' VVWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG
#20190804
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
Katarzyna Israel
184 Spring St.
Saratoga Springs NY 12866
from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 184 Spring St. in the City of Saratoga
Springs,New York being tax parcel number 166.69-1-16 on the Assessment Map of said City.
The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to maintain a
constructed two-story addition on an existing single-family residence in a UR-3 District and public notice
having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 16th day of September, 2019.
In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicants 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
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK 4' 1.4' 2.6'OR 65%
As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions,be approved for the following reasons:
Background: The Board notes that this residence has undergone extensive renovation, and came before the
Board in late 2018, receiving relief relating to the rebuilding of the front porch consistent with previously
existing design for this older structure.
1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant.
Per the applicant, the purpose of the project was to rebuild an existing addition that encroached over the
setback line, while maintaining the footprint of the existing house. The applicant states that she was not
aware of the need for relief that was triggered by this rebuilding project, and so the project was
undertaken and constructed. It was only after the rebuilding project was over that the need for relief
became clear. Therefore, the only way to reduce the encroachment that resulted over the setback is to at
least partially demolish the addition, which is not financially feasible to the applicant.
2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in
neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. As noted by the applicant, "The structure is
the same as it has been for decades, no changes to setback or neighborhood."
3. The Board finds this variance to be substantial; however, the substantiality is mitigated by the project's
consistency with previously existing footprint.
4. This variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or
district, as the footprint will not change and will not cause a lot permeability issue or any other physical
incremental change.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desired to construct the addition, but this is
not necessarily fatal to the application. As noted in the prior resolution,the Board further notes that this is
a restoration project and the positioning of the house dates to before zoning was in effect.
Notes:
1. DRC approval in place.
Adopted by the following vote:
AYES: 6 (K. Kaplan, C. Grey, G. Simpson, S. Morris, B. Gallagher,K. O'Connor)
NAYE S: 0
Dated: September 16, 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.
SIGNATURE: 09/17/2019
CHAIR DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.