Loading...
20190188 Trautner Residence NOD kloGit CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Bill Moore, Chair Keith Kaplan, Vice Chair ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Brad Gallagher,Secretary 4 } Cheryl Grey -,- A `ry �'�` CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY Jerry Luhn ---401)4- A . • ' " r SARATOGA SPRINGS NEW YORK 12866 Chris Hemstead PH)5 18-587-3550 DO 18-580-9480 Kathleen O'Connor,alternate O N WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG #20190188 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF John and Kerry Trautner 232 Nelson Avenue Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 232 Nelson Ave. in the City of Saratoga Springs,New York being tax parcel number 166.53-2-54 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 an addition to 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 8th and 22nd days of April 2019. 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 amounts of relief: REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF DIMENSIONAL REQ. REQUESTED MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK 4 feet 0 feet 4 FEET(100%) MINIMUM TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK 12 feet 4 feet 8 FEET(67%) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions,be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The applicants have demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible for them. By way of example, the applicants note that an alternative design was contemplated that might stand in place of the variance sought, but was rejected; specifically, a pergola construction that would extend only over a portion of the area of the front elevation would not provide sufficient functionality and coverage protection, and would present an aesthetically challenging appearance. The Board notes that the property has preexisting nonconformity with setback requirements, and further notes this application does not call for any substantial expansion of the residence. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance would not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The proposed porch demolition and pergola addition conforms to the outline of the existing house, and does not crowd or encroach upon neighboring properties. 3. The Board finds this variance application to be substantial; however, it is mitigated by the fact that the placement of the residence on the lot is pre-existing. Further, as noted above, the relief request ameliorates the pre-existing nonconformity inherited by the applicants in this case. 4. The judgment of the Board is that this variance will have no significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district, as the footprint will not change substantially. 5. The alleged difficulty presented in this appeal is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed addition in place of a pre-existing and substandard porch structure, but this is not deemed fatal to the application before this Board. Condition: This motion granting the variance sought is conditioned upon an understanding that any future accessory structure(s)on the existing lot may not exceed 6.6%of the lot area. Adopted by the following vote: AYES: 6 (B. Moore, K. Kaplan, C. Grey, B. Gallagher, J. Luhn, C. Hemstead) NAYE S: 0 Dated: April 22, 2019 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, six members of the Board being present. 411111111* et Nik tit ySIGNATURE: �� � _ 04/23/2019 CHAIR DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.