Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190908 Towers Residence 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 #20190908 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Joanne Thorburn and John Towers 91 Union Avenue Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 91 Union Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 168.69-1-28 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 demolition of an existing detached garage and replace it with a second principal structure with a dwelling unit for an existing single-family residence in a Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 16th day of December 2019 through the 27th day 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 INIMUM A VERAGE W IDTH 120 FT. 83.3 FT. 36.7 FT. OR 30.6% A CCESSORY TO S IDE (AC U NIT) 5 FT. 4.4 FT. .6 FT. OR 12% A CCESSORY TO S IDE (G ENERATOR) 5 FT. 3.6 FT. 1.4 FT. OR 28% T OTAL P RINCIPAL B UILDINGS ON 1 2 100% O NE L OT As per the submitted plans and documents or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicants have demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicants. Per the applicants’ representative, the applicants have evaluated several design options, and there is no additional land to purchase to feasibly achieve the desired result. Moreover, the placement of the AC Unit and generator is the only feasible location on the property to meet the applicants’ needs. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicants’ representative notes that the existing garage is not in usable condition, and has demonstrated that several other properties in this area include a second principal structure with a dwelling unit. By removing the deteriorating garage and replacing it with a new, second principal structure that is similar in footprint to the existing garage, there will not be any meaningful change in the neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. Similarly, the variance for the side yard setbacks for the AC Unit and generator will not have any meaningful impact on the neighborhood character or any detriment to nearby properties. 3. The Board notes that the requested variance for a second principal structure is substantial, however the impact of the substantiality is mitigated by the combination of neighborhood context, and the size and location of the second principal structure as compared to the existing garage. With regard to the side yard setback for the generator accessory structure, this may be considered substantial at 28%, however the impact of the substantiality is mitigated by the nature of the accessory and its overall minimum impact on the neighboring property. Similarly, while the requested relief for the minimum average lot width may be considered substantial, the overall size of the lot and neighborhood context would have mitigated the impact on the substantiality. 4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. As previously indicated, there are several existing properties within the neighborhood that include a second principal residence of a similar size, and all roof drainage will be absorbed into the lawn areas adjacent to the current structure. The Board also notes that there remains greater than the required 25% permeability, and total lot coverage will still be within district requirements. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed second principal residence, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. As noted above, the applicant considered several designs, and the improvement in appearance and functionality of the structure and property will provide an overall benefit to the applicants and the neighborhood, thus outweighing the self- created nature of the variance. Conditions: 1. The applicant has agreed to work with the City to remove the existing curb cut due north directly in front of the proposed carriage house to allow for additional street parking. 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, four members of the Board being present. S IGNATURE: _______________________________ 1/29/2020 C HAIR D ATE R ECEIVED BY A CCOUNTS D EPT.