Loading...
20180332 DeVall Residence PB Advisory Opinion CIN OF SARATOGA SPRINGS MAR TORPEY, Chair AMIN TOTINO, Vice Chair t., ^141 I Fit ,-- PLANNING BOARD ROBERT F. BRISTOL CLIFFORD VAN WAGNER .,--- v, 1 /,:.,,,4r. -A, :-< ANET CASEY City Hall -474 Broadway --: , ) -- Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 TODD FABOZZI . i ,, 1 RUTH HORTON 0,-,:--- Tel 5 I 8-587-3550 fax 5 I 8-580-9480 vvww.saratoga-springs.org AMY RYANAlternate , October 19, 2018 Bill Moore, Chair Zoning Board of Appeals City Hall, 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Re: Area Variances Advisory Opinion to the ZBA 59 Franklin Street— DeVall proposed 2-lot Subdivision - PB Project #l 7.051.1 Dear Mr. Moore: Pursuant to your letter of May 14, 2018 the Planning Board has reviewed your request for an advisory opinion on the above noted project. The Planning Board understands that the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing parcel into two lots that would result in the construction of one additional home on the newly established lot. The Board notes that this parcel is located within the City's Franklin Square Historic District and is listed as a "contributing property" on the New York State and National registers of historic places. Based upon the discussion and evaluation of this project at the October 18, 2018 meeting, the Planning Board noted the following regarding this proposal: I. The proposed subdivision would create 2 substandard lots. While the Planning Board is supportive of appropriate urban in-fill, the Board is not supportive of subdivisions that would result in the creation of sub-standard parcels requiring variances, particularly in the City's historic districts. 2. The Board encourages the applicant to pursue alternatives that would not result in the creation of substandard parcels. The Board notes that within this zoning district (UR-4), 2 principal structures would be permitted without the need for subdivision. 3. The Board notes the historic urban form of a dominant primary structure with a secondary accessory structure within much of the City's historic urban residential areas (e.g. primary residence with accessory carriage house use). The Board suggests the applicant explore the use of this form at this location with a structure that is more historically and architecturally appropriate for this location. Page I of 2 With the above considerations, an unfavorable advisory opinion was supported by a 6-0 vote of the Planning Boar-di Record of vote: motion made by M Torpey, seconded by Casey: passed 6-0 In favor: M Torpey, Totino, Casey, T Fabozzi, R Horton, A Ryan (Alt.) Absent: R Bristol, C VanWagner Sincerely yours, Mark Torpey Chair cc: Applicant