Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20191180 Peppers Corners LLC Two Family NOD Keith Kaplan, Chair C ITY OF S ARATOGA S PRINGS Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair Cheryl Grey ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Matthew Gutch  Christopher Mills C ITY H ALL - 474 B ROADWAY Suzanne Morris S ARATOGA S PRINGS, N EW Y ORK 12866 Gage Simpson PH) 518-587-3550 FX) 518-580-9480 Kathleen O’Connor, alternate WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG #20191180 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Caruso Home Builders, LLC 19 Railroad Place, Suite 201 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 173 Lake Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.45-3-46 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 two-family residence in an Urban Residential-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 6th and 27th days of January 2020. 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: T YPE OF R EQUIREMENT D ISTRICT DIMENSIONAL P ROPOSED R ELIEF REQUESTED REQUIREMENT M AXIMUM P RINCIPAL B UILDING 30% 43.0% 13% OR 43.35% RELIEF C OVERAGE M INIMUM S ETBACK- FRONT 10’ 7’ 3’ OR 30% RELIEF As per the submitted plans and documents 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, studies with smaller rooms and alternate floor plans were done and were ruled out due to negative impact on quality living space and marketability of the units. The Board notes that the current use of the property is a retail store in a residential area, and that a previous proposal has been made to develop the property into further retail usage, which was met with neighborhood opposition and withdrawn by the owner. Furthermore, the Board notes that the front setback is a function of this property being a corner lot; the front setback in question is on the Warren Street side of the property. The applicant notes that this setback variance is triggered by the inclusion of a bump-out entranceway, which was included in the plan for aesthetic reasons, to break up a linear arrangement of the side of the building. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The Board notes the fact that the garage areas are attached and included in the middle of the building on the Warren St. side, and therefore part of the principal building calculation and part of the need for relief in this case. Having the interior garage space as well as added parking in the back alleviates the parking impacts on the neighborhood, which is residential and close to the downtown area. The residential use, with parking impacts taken into accounts, will avoid some of the adverse impacts cited in public hearings under the previous proposal to develop two retail stores on the property. 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. Furthermore, in terms of front setback, the proposal represents a decrease in setback encroachment compared to current conditions. 3. The Board notes the requested variance for principal building coverage at 43.33% 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. The Board further notes that the requested setback variance of 30% is also substantial but mitigated by the factors cited above including the fact that this represents a decrease from current encroachment. 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 as noted above, the traffic and parking effects appear likely to be improved relative to current conditions. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed residential structure, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: 1. No further accessory structures are permitted. Adopted by the following vote: AYES: 4 (K. Kaplan, C. Mills, M. Gutch, S. Morris) NAYES: 0 Dated: January 27, 2020 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. S IGNATURE: _______________________________ 1/29/2020 C HAIR D ATE R ECEIVED BY A CCOUNTS D EPT.