Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20250366 134 Crescent St Area Variance Minutes from 04211993 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 21, 1993 PRESENT: Chairman Harvey Fox, Richard Dunn, L. Clifford van Wagner, David Harper, Marjorie Meinhardt, Erwin Levine, Theresa Capozzola Chairman Fox called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Mr. Fox made the following corrections to the March 31, 1993 minutes: Page 1, second paragraph of Morbidelli application, delete the sentence, "The lot was purchased at City auction with contingency that Zoning Board approval be obtained." i Page 3, second paragraph of The Greater Saratoga Corp., delete the last sentence, "The last appointment is at 4:00 PM." Also, fifth paragraph, correct first sentence to read, Mr. Phil Benton said there is no problem at the present time with parking, therefore, he did not discuss the matter of additional parking with Mr. Piccolo. Mr. van Wagner moved to accept the minutes with corrections. Seconded by Mr. Dunn. Ayes all. The first application was Kathleen K. Mannix, 198 Church Street, for an extension of variances granted to convert downstairs apartment into a professional office in a C-4 zone. Mr. John Mannix appeared before the Board. Mr. Mannix said nothing in the application has changed since last year. No changes in neighborhood, no change in plans. Received site plan review in July 1992. There were no appearances. Hearing closed 7:03 PM. The second application was Harry and Louise Landry, 169 Union Avenue, for area variances as proposed additions will encroach into front yard setback and side yard setback and will exceed maximum lot coverage in a UR-4 zone. Their builder, Dick Cooley, appeared before the Board. Mr. Cooley said there will be two additions to the house. A front line variance is needed on Ludlow Street from 25' to 17' ; side yard from 20' to 13'; alcove addition (side) from 20' to 3'6"; lot coverage from 25% to 33.9%. There was a variance in 1984 for use as a three family and presently using it as a two family residence. Practical difficulty. Can not stay within setback requirements as it would be too narrow. They will be eliminating one unit and the alcove will be for traffic flow on the first floor; one story addition. The rear addition is also one story and will contain a family room, sun room, mud room off kitchen. The third unit has been dismantled over the years and turned into laundry room. The renovation work is a three year phased program. It is presently aluminum siding and will be restored to original siding. Zoning Board of Appeals - April 21, 1993 Mr. Landry noted that the neighbors have no problem with this application. There were no appearances. Hearing closed 7:15 PM. The third application was Mary Younwirth, 12 Saddlebrook Drive, for an area variance for the installation of a swimming pool which does not meet required separation of 15' between house and pool in an RR-1 zone. A representative of the swimming pool company appeared before the Board. The representative said the pool location as requested is necessary due to the placement of the septic system and leach field. In the future, a porch may be added and the swimming pool would be 8' from the garage area. In order to comply with Code, the pool would have to be turned which would reduce the visibility from the house and be a safety factor. It would be costly to move the septic system in order to meet Code. There were no appearances. Hearing closed 7:23 PM. The fourth application was John and Sharon Kirkpatrick, 81 York Avenue, for an area variance as proposed construction will encroach into front setback along York Avenue and building coverage will exceed maximum allowed by Code in a UR-3 zone. Mr. Kirkpatrick appeared before the Board. Mr. Kirkpatrick said they would like to put a one story addition onto the house for a family room and mud room with a basement under the addition. The house was built in the 1940s and there is only 20' to the front line instead of the required 25'. Also, the overall lot coverage does not meet requirements. There is an overhang on the back with an existing porch. Can not relocaate as house is too close to other houses in neighborhood. The lot is similar in size to other lots in neighborhood. The building is on a slab. Ms. Julia Van Hall, 84 York Avenue, expressed her support for this application. Hearing closed 7:26 PM. The fifth application was Susan and Robert Connerty, 8 Livingston Avenue, for an area variance as existing garage and portion of deck encroach into front yard setback along Prospect Street in a UR-2 zone. Attorney Debbie Cutler appeared before the Board. Ms. Cutler said they are requesting an area variance as garage and deck violate the 25' setback as this property is a corner lot with two front yards. The garage encroaches l' because of overhang and survey shows that existing garage (built prior to the sale of the property to the present owner) overhangs by 1'. Prospect Street has been declared green space by the City Council. I It would cost $3,000 to remove and replace the deck. The property value ` would be diminished by $13,000-$16,000 if the two car garage and deck had to be removed. The decking is not in violation but attaches to garage and garage is in violation and, therefore, it is considered as one structure. If moved, it would - 2 - Zoning Board of Appeals - April 21, 1993 i be 75' and behind the house. The paper street can not be built on. The City Council has approved an easement for the garage. The present owners purchased the property in 1985 and did not know the garage violated the zoning laws before the sale. The garage was built ten years ago. Mr. Harper noted that some people are of the opinion that those streets were never dedicated to the City and do not exist. Judge Brown ruled that property owner owns to the middle of the green space. There were no appearances. Hearing closed 7:35 PM. The sixth application was Dr. Jon Globerson and Susan Farnsworth, 54 Granger Avenue, for area variances to construct a two story addition to residence which will exceed maximum lot coverage allowed by Code and encroach into side yard and total side yard setbacks in a UR-1 zone. Attorney Michael Toohey and Architect Tom Frost appeared before the Board. Mr. Toohey said the property is located in a single family zone, built in 1940s, and setbacks pre-exist zoning ordinance. The proposed addition is 732 sq. ft. to the rear of the property. The lot is 50' wide with 30' wide setbacks and this would create an unbuildable area. The building extension is consistent in all dimensions with what exists on the house and want - to extend the house backward. The overhangs were not counted previously and a bow window exists on the side and encroachment of addition is no worse than what exists now. The shed in the rear has been removed. Hardship. The house is 1,000 sq. ft. and house, as it goes backward, will not create any additional problems. Neighbors have no objections to this application. Mr. Frost noted that the rooms on the first floor will be an extension of the kitchen, dining room, family room and screened-in porch; second floor is master bedroom. Mr. Toohey commented that the extension does not change use of property in any way. Ms. Carol McGuire, 294 Caroline Street, a neighbor of the applicants, was in support of this application. Ms. Holly Neal, 298 Caroline Street, was also in support of this application. Hearing closed 7:45 PM. The seventh application was David Celeste, 264 Crescent Street, for an area variance to construct a garage which will encroach into front yard setback in a UR-2 zone. Architect David Terwilliger and Mr. Celeste appeared before the Board. i Mr. Terwilliger noted that the south property line is only 50' and not 53' as shown on site plan. This is a corner lot and will affect side yard setback in rear to 11' and not 14' The adjacent property to south on Ward Street is 16' off Ward Street from property line and another neighbor is 9'. No one is at 25' , with 15' as an average. One is 3'-4' from property line. 3 - Zoning Board of Appeals - April 21, 1993 The garage will be 24'x25' ; if it were 20.6'x25' it would not be in violation but that is not a practical dimension for a two car garage. The garage will have a heated workshop and lavatory on the second floor; nothing commercial. In response to Mr. Van Wagner's concern about an apartment eventually being put in on the second floor, Mr. Celeste said there is no place for storage in the house and can not use the basement. Do not want to put in an apartment in the garage. Mr. Terwilliger commented that the upstairs will be heated and the downstairs will not be heated which is the reason for the separate entrance. A door could be put at the top of the stairs to eliminate the separate entrance. Mr. Dunn referred to a previous application for the construction of a garage on Middle Avenue and the approval was conditioned that there be no plumbing. There were no appearances. Hearing closed 8:14 PM. The eighth application was Merrily Miller, 674 Crescent Avenue, for an area variance for the removal of a portion of residence and construction of an addition which will encroach into total side yards in an RR-1 zone. Architect Tom Frost and Dr. Miller appeared before the Board. Mr. Frost said the existing porch was converted to an enclosed room and the foundation under that whole section is heaving and the sills have moved. The foundation and porch must be removed. The new addition will have a full basement under the dining room and the rest of addition will be up on piers as property drops off. The rear yard will come. out 3' behind deck. The property was purchased in July 1988 and used as a summer residence even though it is winterized for year round use. There were no appearances. Hearing closed 8:25 PM. The next application of Bruce J. Levinsky, 63 Putnam Street, for an extension of a variance granted for an 80 space parking waiver was not heard as the wrong neighbors were notified. Hearing held open to May meeting. The next application of Bruce J. Levinsky, 20 Circular Street, for a continuation of hearing to convert residence to a bed and breakfast was held open to the May meeting as a denial from the Building Inspector is needed in order to have the correct figures to make a decision on this matter. The last application was Bruce J. Levinsky, 20 Circular Street, for a use variance to erect a 4.6 sq. ft. t freestanding sign for a proposed bed and breakfast which is not permitted in a UR-2 zone. Mr. Levinsky appeared before the Board. Mr. Levinsky said the location of the sign will be at the apex of front of house where existing plants come together. The plants will be cut back so that plantings will come almost together and take 90° turn to create an open space for the sign. - 4 - Zoning Board of Appeals - April 21, 1993 The sign is relatively small in relation to building and location is about as innocuous as it could be designed. It will allow people to know that it is a bed and breakfast from all three approaches where the road come together. The sign will be illuminated with a ground light. There is an existing flood light that lights the entire mansion. There were no appearances. Hearing closed 8:52 PM. Meeting recessed. Meeting reconvened 9:00 PM. Mr. Fox moved that the application of Kathleen Mannix for variances granted, as shown on submitted plans originally granted on January 29, 1992, are extended for one year. Based on evidence submitted, that the application for extension does not differ from the original application, there have been no significant changes in the condition of the neighborhood, and the changes in the Zoning Code adopted August 6, 1990 do not adversely affect the variances, the Zoning Board of Appeals grants this extension for one year from the signing of this extension. Seconded by Mrs. Meinhardt. Ayes all. Extension approved. Mrs. Capozzola moved that the application of Harry and Louise Landry for an area variance for front yard setback of 17' instead of required 25' for rear addition, side yard setback of 13' instead of required 20' for rear addition, side yard setback of 3'6" instead of required 20' for alcove addition and percentage coverage of 33.9% instead of required 25% to permit construction of a rear addition and alcove addition, as shown on submitted plans, be granted for the following reasons: The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty that would result in significant economic injury if the variance were not granted because there is no feasible way to locate addition on side without violation and it should be noted that existing structure was built in 1901 and pre-exists Zoning Code. The applicant has demonstrated that this action is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship. The granting of this area variance will not have an adverse impact on the essential character of the neighborhood. Condition: That applicant convert structure to two family residence in conformance with Zoning Code, from three family use. Seconded by Mr. Van Wagner. Ayes all. Motion approved. Mr. Levine moved that the application of Mary Youngwirth for an area variance for a minimum separation between the residence and inground swimming pool of 7' instead of required 15' , as shown on submitted plans, be granted for the following reasons: The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty that would result in significant economic injury if the variance were not granted because evidence has been shown that the cost of relocating the septic system to bring the separation F 5 - Zoning Board of Appeals - April 21, 1993 between house and pool into compliance with the zoning code would be prohibitive. The applicant has demonstrated that this action is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship in that the location of septic system limits the ability to position the pool in compliance with the code and to maintain high visibility from house to the pool area. The granting of this area variance will not have an adverse impact on the essential character of the neighborhood. Seconded by Mr. Van Wagner. Ayes all. Motion approved. Mr. Harper moved thattthe application of John and Sharon Kirkpatrick for an area variance for front yard setback of 201 +/- instead of required 251; maximum lot coverage of 37.5% instead of required 30% to construct a 520 sq. ft. +/- addition to the existing residence for use as a family room and entry vestibule, as shown on submitted plans, be granted for the following reasons: The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty that would result in significant economic injury if the variance were not granted because there is no land for sale from contiguous property owners and there is no feasible way to relocate the building or the addition onsite to better comply with zoning setbacks. It should be noted that the existing building predates the zoning ordinance. The applicant has demonstrated that this action is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship. The granting of this area variance will not have an adverse impact on the essential character of the neighborhood. Seconded by Mr. Levine. Ayes all. Motion approved. Mr. Van Wagner moved that the application of Susan and Robert Connert for an area variance for a front yard setback of 0' instead of required 25' for an attached garage and deck, as shown on submitted plans, be granted for the following reasons: The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty that would result in significant economic injury if the variance were not granted because the cost of removing this ten year old construction, erected prior to the present owner- ship, would be prohibitive. The applicant has demonstrated that this action is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship in that the garage and deck have existed harmoniously in the neighborhood for the past ten years. The granting of this area variance will not have an adverse impact on M the essential character of the neighborhood. Seconded by Mr. Fox. Ayes all. Motion approved. Mr. Dunn moved that the application of Dr. Jon Globerson and Susan Farnsworth for an area variance for a north side yard setback of 666" +/- instead of the required 12' and continuance of south side yard setback of 9010" +/-, - 6 - i Zoning Board of Appeals - April 21, 1993 total sides of 1614"+/- instead of required 301 and lot coverage of 22.6%+/- instead of required 20% to permit construction of a two story addition to the residence, as shown on submitted plans, be granted for the following reasons: The applicant has demonstrated that this action is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship in as much as the existing residence is only 1,000 sq. ft. and the proposed addition provides reasonable living space. Further, the proposed addition does not infringe on existing setbacks any more than existing infringements. The granting of this area variance will not have an adverse impact on !. the essential character of the neighborhood and this project was supported by the testimony of several neighbors. seconded. by Mr. Van Wagner. Ayes all. Motion approved. Mrs. Capozzola moved that the application of David Celeste for an area variance for a front yard setback of 15' instead of required 25, to.permit construction of a 241x25' garage, as shown on submitted plans, and further subject to conditions as stated below, be granted for the following reasons: The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty that would result in significant economic injury if the variance were not granted because no other location is available on the property in which to locate the garage due to the proximity of neighboring residences. APh- The applicant has demonstrated that this action is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship; that the size of the garage is the minimum size to maintain the usefulness of the building. The granting of this area variance will not have an adverse impact on the essential character of the neighborhood. The following conditions must be met: a. That no plumbing be installed on the second floor. b. That the second floor not be used or converted into living space. Seconded by Mr. Van Wagner. Ayes all. Motion approved. Mrs. Meinhardt •moved that the application of Merrily Miller for an area variance for total sides of 46.5' instead of the required 100f to permit removal of part of building and to permit construction of a single story addition for a family room, dining room and deck, as shown on submitted plans, be granted for the following reasons: The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty that would result in significant economic injury if the variance were not granted because the structure, as it stands, has deteriorated and is in unsafe condition according to submitted evidence. The applicant has demonstrated that this action is the minimum variance. 7 - Zoning Board of Appeals - April 21, 1993 The granting of this area variance will not have an adverse impact on the essential character of the neighborhood. Seconded by.•.Mr. Dunn. Ayes all. Motion approved. Mr. Fox moved that the application of Bruce J. Levinsky for a use variance to permit a 4.6 sq. ft. freestanding sign, as shown on submitted plans be granted for the following reasons: j The applicant has demonstrated that this property cannot yield a reasonable financial return if used for any permissible use by providing proof that the property is of such a configuration that a freestanding sign is reasonably necessary to identify the proposed bed and breakfast use. The applicant has demonstrated that this property is unique. The applicant has demonstrated that the variance requested is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship because no smaller sign could reasonably identify the property. The use authorized by the variance will not have an adverse impact on the essential character of the neighborhood. The following conditions must be met: Review by Historic Review Commission. Furthermore, move to issue a SEQRA Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on this action. Seconded by Mr. Dunn. Ayes all. Motion approved. Next meeting May 26, 1993. Meeting adjourned 9:25 PM. i 8 -