Loading...
20190071 Stellato Residence Revised App 9-5-19 CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS aG VI-9 Ho L J - 4 74 6 ro-a-oknta-y j v ` Sara ga' New-Yo-rk/1-2 8 6 6 , .` Tel: 518—587-3550 j 518—580-9480 cii?POA O INSTRUCTIONS APPEAL TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR AN INTERPRETATION, USE VARIANCE,AREA VARIANCE AND/OR VARIANCE EXTENSION APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS I. ELIGIBILITY:To apply for relief from the City's Zoning Ordinance, an applicant must be the property owner(s) or lessee, or have an option to lease or purchase the property in question. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) shall not accept any application for appeal that includes a parcel which has a written violation from the Zoning and Building Inspector that is not the subject of the application. 2. COMPLETE SUBMISSIONS:Applicants are encouraged to work with City staff to ensure a complete application.The ZBA will only consider properly completed applications that contain I original and I digital version of the following: ❑ Completed application pages I and 8, the pages relating to the requested relief(p. 2 for interpretation or extension, pp. 3-5 for use variance, pp. 6-7 for area variance), and any additional supporting materials/documentation. **HANDWRITTEN APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED** ❑ Completed SEQR Environmental Assessment Form —short or long form as required by action. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seafpartone.pdf ❑ Detailed "to scale" drawings of the proposed project—folded and no larger than 24"x 36". Identify all existing and proposed structures, lot boundaries and dimensions, and the relationship of structures to the lot dimensions. Also, include any natural or manmade features that might affect your property (e.g., drains, ponds, easements, etc.). ❑ Photographs showing the site and subject of your appeal, and its relationship to adjacent properties. 3. APPLICATION FEE (NON-REFUNDABLE): Make checks payable to the "Commissioner of Finance". Fees are cumulative and required for each request below. ❑ Interpretation $480 ❑ Use variance $1,000 ❑ Area variance - Residential use/property $175 - Non-residential use/property$600 ❑ Extensions $150 SUBMISSION DEADLINE: Check City's website (www.saratoga-springs.org) for application deadlines and meeting dates. Revised 03/2018 ZONING BOARD APPEAL APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS PAGE 2 PUBLIC HEARING ADVERTISEMENT The Zoning Board of Appeals is required to hold a public hearing on each submitted application within ninety(90) days from when it is determined to be properly complete by City staff. City staff will prepare a legal notice for the public hearing and arrange to have the public hearing announcement printed in The Saratogian legal notices at least 5 days before the hearing. Applicants must pay The Saratogian for the legal ad and present proof of payment to the ZBA prior to the public hearing. If proof of payment is not presented prior to the hearing, the hearing will be cancelled. PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION Applicants are required to mail a copy of the public hearing legal notice to all property owners within the following distances from the boundaries of the land in question: Type of variance Distance for property owner notification Use variance 250 feet Area variance & Interpretation 100 feet This notice must be sent at least 7 days but not more than 20 days before the date of the public hearing. City staff will email a copy of the"property owner notification letter"to the applicant.The applicant must then send the notification letter to the nearby property owners.Applicants may not include any other materials in this mailing. The mailing must be certified by the U.S. Post Office. Prior to the public hearing, applicants must present the Post Office "certificates of mailing" to the ZBA. If"certificates of mailing" are not presented prior to the hearing, the hearing will be cancelled. Revised 12/2015 q [FOR OFFICE USE] ` CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS (Application#) Cv d -H 474 f3 So-Ta--gam S i vLgS% N&w"Yo-rk/1-z 8 66 . `', Te,(% 518-587-3550 518-580-9480 (Date received) 'PoRATED APPLICATION FOR: APPEAL TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR AN INTERPRETATION, USE VARIANCE,AREA VARIANCE AND/OR VARIANCE EXTENSION APPLICANT(S)* OWNER(S) (If not applicant) ATTORNEY/AGENT Tony&Jerilyn Stellato Name 148 Woodlawn Ave. Address Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 518-573-6362 Phone tonystellato.jr@gmail.com Email *An applicant must be the property owner, lessee, or one with an option to lease or purchase the property in question. Applicant's interest in the premises: IZ Owner 0 Lessee 0 Under option to lease or purchase PROPERTY INFORMATION 148 Woodlawn Avenue 165 44 1 52 . Property Address/Location: Tax Parcel No.: - - (for example: 165.52—4—37) Feb. 3, 2016 UR-3 2. Date acquired by current owner: 3.Zoning District when purchased: Residential UR-3 4. Present use of property: 5. Current Zoning District: 6. Has a previous ZBA application/appeal been filed for this property? ❑Yes (when? For what? IZ No 7. Is property located within (check all that apply)?: 0 Historic District 0 Architectural Review District 0 500' of a State Park, city boundary, or county/state highway? 8. Brief description of proposed action: Construction of a 260 SF+/-addition to an existing residence and a 360 SF+/-addition to an existing garage/carriage. 9. Is there a written violation for this parcel that is not the subject of this application? 0 Yes 121 No 10. Has the work, use or occupancy to which this appeal relates already begun? Yes VI No I. Identify the type of appeal you are requesting (check all that apply): 0 INTERPRETATION (p. 2) 0 VARIANCE EXTENSION (p. 2) 0 USE VARIANCE (pp. 3-6) 0 AREA VARIANCE(pp. 6-7) Revised 12/2015 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE 2 FEES:Make checks payable to the"Commissioner of Finance". Fees are cumulative and required for each request below. ❑ Interpretation $ 480 ❑ Use variance $1,000 IZ Area variance -Residential use/property: $ 175 -Non-residential use/property: $ 600 ❑ Extensions: $ 150 INTERPRETATION—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary): I. Identify the section(s) of the Zoning Ordinance for which you are seeking an interpretation: Section(s) 2. How do you request that this section be interpreted? 3. If interpretation is denied, do you wish to request alternative zoning relief? EYes ❑No 4. If the answer to#3 is "yes,"what alternative relief do you request?❑ Use Variance ❑Area Variance EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary): I. Date original variance was granted: 2. Type of variance granted? ❑ Use ❑Area 3. Date original variance expired: 5. Explain why the extension is necessary.Why wasn't the original timeframe sufficient? When requesting an extension of time for an existing variance,the applicant must prove that the circumstances upon which the original variance was granted have not changed. Specifically demonstrate that there have been no significant changes on the site, in the neighborhood, or within the circumstances upon which the original variance was granted: Revised 03/2018 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE 3 USE VARIANCE—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary): A use variance is requested to permit the following: For the Zoning Board to grant a request for a use variance, an applicant must prove that the zoning regulations create an unnecessary hardship in relation to that property. In seeking a use variance,New York State law requires an applicant to prove all four of the following "tests". . That the applicant cannot realize a reasonable financial return on initial investment for any currently permitted use on the property. "Dollars&cents" proof must be submitted as evidence.The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return for the following reasons: A. Submit the following financial evidence relating to this property(attach additional evidence as needed): I) Date of purchase: Purchase amount: $ 2) Indicate dates and costs of any improvements made to property after purchase: Date Improvement Cost 3)Annual maintenance expenses:$ 4)Annual taxes: $ 5)Annual income generated from property:$ 6) City assessed value: $ Equalization rate: Estimated Market Value: $ 7)Appraised Value: $ Appraiser: Date: Appraisal Assumptions: Revised 03/2018 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE 4 B. Has property been listed for sale with ❑Yes If"yes",for how long? the Multiple Listing Service(MLS)? C❑No I)Original listing date(s): Original listing price:$ If listing price was reduced, describe when and to what extent: 2) Has the property been advertised in the newspapers or other publications? ❑Yes ❑No If yes, describe frequency and name of publications: 3) Has the property had a"For Sale" sign posted on it? IYes ❑No If yes, list dates when sign was posted: 4) How many times has the property been shown and with what results? 2. That the financial hardship relating to this property is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood. Difficulties shared with numerous other properties in the same neighborhood or district would not satisfy this requirement. This previously identified financial hardship is unique for the following reasons: Revised 03/2018 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE S 3. That the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Changes that will alter the character of a neighborhood or district would be at odds with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The requested variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood for the following reasons: 4. That the alleged hardship has not been self-created.An applicant(whether the property owner or one acting on behalf of the property owner)cannot claim "unnecessary hardship" if that hardship was created by the applicant, or if the applicant acquired the property knowing(or was in a position to know)the conditions for which the applicant is seeking relief.The hardship has not been self-created for the following reasons: Revised 03/2018 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE 6 AREA VARIANCE—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary): 2.3 (Table 3) The applicant requests relief from the following Zoning Ordinance article(s) Dimensional Requirements From To Max. Principal Building Coverage 30% 30.9% Max.Accessory Building Coverage 10% 23.1% Other: Continuation of existing area non-conformities including: 1) lot area 6,500 SF, 2) lot width 50 FT, 3)front setback 1.5 FT,4)side setback 0.5 FT. 5)accessory buildina side setback 3.5 FT. 61 accessory buildina rear setback 0 FT. To grant an area variance,the ZBA must balance the benefits to the applicant and the health,safety,and welfare of the neighborhood and community,taking into consideration the following: . Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other feasible means. Identify what alternatives to the variance have been explored (alternative designs, attempts to purchase land, etc.)and why they are not feasible. See attached supplement. 2. Whether granting the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Granting the variance will not create a detriment to nearby properties or an undesirable change in the neighborhood character for the following reasons: See attached supplement. Revised 03/2018 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE 7 3. Whether the variance is substantial. The requested variance is not substantial for the following reasons: See attached supplement. 4. Whether the variance will have adverse physical or environmental effects on neighborhood or district. The requested variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district for the following reasons: See attached supplement. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created(although this does not necessarily preclude the granting of an area variance). Explain whether the alleged difficulty was or was not self-created: See attached supplement. Revised 03/2018 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE 8 DISCLOSURE Does any City officer,employee,or family member thereof have a financial interest(as defined by General Municipal Law Section 809)in this application? IZI No 0 Yes If"yes",a statement disclosing the name,residence and nature and extent of this interest must be filed with this application. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I/we,the property owner(s), or purchaser(s)/lessee(s) under contract, of the land in question, hereby request an appearance before the Zoning Board of Appeals. By the signature(s) attached hereto, I/we certify that the information provided within this application and accompanying documentation is,to the best of my/our knowledge,true and accurate. I/we further understand that intentionally providing false or misleading information is grounds for immediate denial of this application. Furthermore, I/we hereby authorize the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals and designated City staff to enter the property associated with this application for purposes of conducting any necessary site inspections relating to this appeal. Date: (applicant signature) Date: (applicant signature) If applicant is not the currently the owner of the property,the current owner must also sign. Owner Signature: Date: Owner Signature: Date: Revised 03/2018 ZONING AND BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR LAND USE AND/OR BUILDING APPLICANT: TAX PARCEL NO.: - - PROPERTY ADDRESS: ZONING DISTRICT: This applicant has applied to use the identified property within the City of Saratoga Springs for the following: This application is hereby denied upon the grounds that such use of the property would violate the City Zoning Ordinance article(s) .As such,the following relief would be required to proceed: ❑ Extension of existing variance 0 Interpretation ❑ Use Variance to permit the following: ❑Area Variance seeking the following relief: Dimensional Requirements From To Other: Note: ❑Advisory Opinion required from Saratoga County Planning Board ZONING AND BUILDING INSPECTOR DATE Revised 03/2018 Stellato Residence—148 Woodlawn Avenue Area Variance Application Supplement To grant an area variance, the ZBA must balance the benefits to the applicant and the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and community, taking into consideration the following: 1. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other feasible means. Identify what alternatives to the variance have been explored (alternative designs, attempts to purchase land, etc.) and why they are not feasible. Principal Structure: Applicant seeks to replace the existing basement stairs with a safe, code compliant stairway. The house has a walkout basement, and the first floor is elevated one story above grade at the rear of the house. The basement stair provides egress from the first floor. In the winter, the exterior rear stairway and the path from the garage to front of the house are often unusable due to snow and ice. Falling snow and ice from the house's steep slate roof always accumulates in dense, heavy, unmovable piles on the walkway by mid-winter, making access to the front door from the rear yard nearly impossible until the spring thaw. Under these regularly occurring conditions, the basement stairway serves as the only viable route between the garage and the house. The existing basement stairway is extremely dangerous due to its steep riser height and shallow depth. It is too narrow to accommodate a handrail, so using it is similar to ascending/descending a ladder without holding on. There have been numerous falls by family members down these stairs, and thankfully only minor injuries. The role these stairs play in everyday life as well as their importance as a means of emergency egress makes their replacement an immediate and critical need for the health and safety of the applicant's family. There is neither adequate space nor structural feasibility within the existing building to reframe the stairs to be code compliant and safe. Placing a new stairway in an addition is the only feasible option. Applicant seeks to create a full bath on the first floor to allow an existing first floor study to function as a guest bedroom. This will allow the applicants to care for their elderly relatives when that time arrives. This need became clear when one of the applicant's parents recently was ill. Previously,Applicant sought to meet this need by adding a full bedroom suite to the first floor. The current plan reflects a significant scaling down of that proposal, and results in a substantially smaller addition. The addition footprint has been designed to be only large enough for the stairway and full bath on the first floor, and it is the minimum size feasible to provide them. Applicant seeks to replace the existing deck that will be displaced by the addition with a new deck of similar size and orientation. The deck is used for outdoor cooking and dining space. An at-grade patio will not serve this purpose because the first-floor elevation at the rear of the house is a full story above grade. Carrying food and dishes up and down the stairs between the kitchen and a patio level cooking/dining area would be difficult, especially for elderly family members. The deck proposed is the minimum size that can accommodate an outdoor dining table and barbecue grill. Decreasing the width of the deck to less than 12'will make it impractical to fit a dining table with chairs on either side. Making the deck shorter than the width of the back of the house also makes it impractical to fit a barbecue grill on one end. In addition to proposing the minimum feasible deck size,the current plan also eliminates the existing deck's exterior stairway, because the new basement stairway will eliminate the need for the exterior one. Stellato Area Variance Supplement Page 1 Accessory Structure: Applicant seeks to extend the depth of the existing garage by eight feet into the rear yard to allow parking for two classic cars that are driven only occasionally in the summer. One of these cars is a family heirloom, having been purchased new by the applicant's father in 1957. With the 8' x 24' (192 SF) addition, the garage will safely house the two classics in the rear and have enough room in the front for the two cars the applicants drive daily. 192 SF is the minimum addition that will provide this function. Applicant seeks to replace an existing stairway to the second floor with a new, enclosed stairway. The second floor contains an apartment that is heavily used by Applicant's family, particularly visiting adult children and their families. The existing stair is covered with a makeshift roof, but the sides are open, making the stairway dangerous to use in the winter time. The enclosed stairway will replace the makeshift structure, and it will significantly improve the appearance of the building. Applicant seeks to construct a 12' wide open sided carport to provide one additional covered parking space for one of the applicant's children to use. The carport cover is needed to protect the vehicle from damage caused by falling black walnuts,which are the size of golf balls. Three existing trees drop walnuts from mid-summer through fall, making the existing driveway practically unusable during that time. Falling walnuts have caused considerable damage to Applicant's vehicles already. The applicants have considered removing the black walnut trees, but find that option aesthetically unappealing as it will negatively impact the character of their yard,the alley and the neighborhood. Additionally,the applicants do not own all of the walnut trees that contribute to the problem in their driveway. Applicant previously proposed a 20'wide carport that would cover most of the existing driveway and provide protected parking for two vehicles. The current plan represents a significant scaling down of the previous plan, and a concession from the applicant that will allow limited use of their driveway, but their other two children who reside at home will use on-street parking during black walnut season. Finally, Applicant seeks to make a significant improvement in the appearance of the accessory structure by removing an existing unattractive deck and stairway and replacing it with a more attractive addition. The photos below illustrate Applicant's before and after vision, and the inspiration that was provided to the architect for the design of the carport: • 4 p rf --�""- o )40„, \11_ — Lam, f11 J � � ' —_ " �'..� � �,�•r . iiif I '4447 N ;� ������� �'�,sem► � �� �111111 I • sr _ _moi" . _ . _ - �'yam�. �•'s * �'� ^ — .". Stellato Area Variance Supplement Page 2 2. Whether granting the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Granting the variance will not create a detriment to nearby properties or an undesirable change in the neighborhood character for the following reasons: Principal Structure: The applicants' property is twice as wide as many of the lots in the neighborhood with similar building coverage. The house was built in 1898 by John and Carrie Welch on a lot that was created along with 154 and 158 Woodlawn Avenue (then known as Matilda Street) from the 1893 subdivision of property owned by the descendants of Joseph Baucus into three parcels that were generally 50 feet wide by 130 feet deep. Neighbors who have also researched the history of their homes have learned that many of the original lots were further subdivided in the early 20th century, and new homes were built between the existing ones. The house at 146 Woodlawn Avenue (next door to Applicant) is a circa-1930s Sears catalog home built on one of those further subdivided lots. Its northern wall sits within one foot of the applicants' side lot line, and its eaves overlap with the original house to the south of it, as shown in the photo on the left below. In contrast to the three neighboring houses to the south, Applicant's house is sited more than fifteen feet from the houses on either side (see photo on right). This illustrates the interesting variation in density/lot coverage that can be seen today along this block of Woodlawn Avenue, and is part of the charm and character of the neighborhood. 7P, . e' er { ,,, _ - � { .. _ •4F �. ` . t . `mss v - k 9 1( . ice. p [ I iiTl I - pI �..- 11111 11111111111111141 11111 { ~ _- _ cE_1�i� �' _`.�` ''M�''�.�' J�.�` �rw{,ok 7"•c�1�.-�'a +tin^�,t�xj,;,,�y1�,. ----- ``. This notwithstanding, the proposed principal structure addition and deck will not extend further into either side yard than the existing structure. It will not be visible from either Woodlawn Avenue or Long Alley, and it will have no detrimental effect on nearby properties or neighborhood character, no matter if evaluated from the perspective of the contemporary zoning code or the historical context of the neighborhood. Applicant previously submitted a Land Coverage Analysis which evaluated principal and accessory building coverage on 16 other properties in the neighborhood. The analysis included all properties within the UR- 3 zone to the north and south of Applicant's property, and on both sides of the street. Data was pulled from the Saratoga County Image Mate online resource, and field verified visually from the right-of-way. The Land Coverage Analysis shows that of the 16 properties evaluated, 9, or 56.3% exceed the principal building coverage proposed by Applicant. At the March 4, 2019 meeting, ZBA Chairman Bill Moore requested that the analysis be checked for accuracy, because he felt it may have overestimated lot coverage, particularly on 134 Woodlawn Avenue, Stellato Area Variance Supplement Page 3 which shows 98.5% principal building coverage. Applicant re-checked the analysis, and found it to be substantially accurate, understanding the Image Mate data it was based upon is not always 100 percent accurate. The building areas provided by Image Mate are not surveyed, and they come from varying and undocumented sources. Some margin of error is to be expected. However,Applicant did field edit all the data. While physically measuring all buildings was not practical during the field edit, visual observations made from the right-of-way confirmed that the data used in the analysis was reasonably accurate. 134 Woodlawn Avenue was checked again specifically, and it was determined that 98.5% principal building coverage appears to be accurate for that lot. Applicant is a licensed professional civil engineer, is competent and within his area of practice to make this professional judgement. Accessory Structure: The accessory structure,originally known as 146% Long Alley, pre-dates the house by at least fifteen years based on review of Sanborn maps. At the time the Welches purchased the property in 1893, Bronson Vaughn, a stair builder, operated his business there and likely lived in the second-floor quarters over his workshop. It is evident that Vaughn moved out when the Welches arrived, and John Welch then moved his livery business into the building. This block of Long Alley (now known as Wiswall Lane) has evolved from the days of the workshops and livery barns that lined it. It remains very much an alley, serving as the entrance to garages for the homes on Woodlawn Avenue and North Broadway. One of the old barns still functions as a workshop for local builder Witt Construction. The alley provides access to parking lots that serve the multi-unit apartments that are the temporary homes to class after class of Skidmore students. In recent years, several of the carriage houses have been converted to and reconstructed as residences, and some beautiful new carriage homes have been built on the alley. s M r S - Nil _ r:.{• _ -_'•-lam _ 17 f - .. ,. I. ,r1Y�i* V~ TµAye ~ 1 • u s Stellato Area Variance Supplement Page 4 Today, the alley takes on its own unique personality. It is a popular walking path to and from downtown for locals, where one can gaze upon wonderfully well-kept cottages contrasted with overstuffed dumpsters, and neither appears out of place. It is a neighborhood in and of itself, where retired residents can be found having casual conversations with college students about their studies and future plans. The applicants seek to make an investment in their carriage house that will improve both its utility and its appearance. It will be an enhancement to the character and the "experience" of the alley. Stellato Area Variance Supplement Page 5 The existing structure exceeds the 10% allowable accessory building lot coverage, as do 58% of the accessory structures counted in the Land Coverage Analysis. Of the 16 properties evaluated, 11 have accessory structures, and 6 of those exceed the threshold. The improved structure will not extend further into the rear yard than the nearest carriage houses. This is demonstrated by the photographs below, taken from the applicant's rear yard looking north and south along the existing west wall of the garage. They show that the neighboring accessory buildings establish a western building line that extends further into the rear yards than the applicant's proposed 8' deep addition will. Finally, Applicant's proposal maintains permeable green area at 35.5%, more than 10% above the zoning threshold in a neighborhood where 30% of properties do not meet the minimum requirement. This is evidence that the lot coverage variance requested will not create an overcrowded lot, and it will only be an improvement to neighborhood character. 3. Whether the variance is substantial. The requested variance is not substantial for the following reasons: The variances requested are not substantial because the applicants' proposal will maintain bulk and area standards that are in harmony and balanced with the current character and historical context of the neighborhood. Applicant has demonstrated, after significantly reducing the scale of the project, that the relief sought is the minimum necessary to provide the desired benefit. 4. Whether the variance will have adverse physical or environmental effects on neighborhood or district. The requested variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district for the following reasons: The applicants' proposal will have no adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood or district. The relief requested is well within the limits established by other properties in the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created (although this does not necessarily preclude the granting of an area variance). Explain whether the alleged difficulty was or was not self-created: While the difficulty in conforming with the zoning ordinance was partially self-created by the applicant's needs, the existing safety concerns and the difficulty caused by the falling black walnuts were not. Stellato Area Variance Supplement Page 6 148 WOODLAWN AVENUE EXISTING PLAN - PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AREA UNDER EAVE CALCULATION AREA WIDTH DEPTH AREA A 30.15 6.75 203.51 SF B 31.15 16.00 498.40 SF C 34.65 2.00 69.30 SF D 31.90 13.40 427.46 SF E 24.40 13.00 317.20 SF F 23.00 4.00 92.00 SF G 20.00 7.00 140.00 SF TOTAL 1747.87 SF LOT 50.00 130.00 6500.00 SF LOT COVERAGE 26.89% ALLOWED 30.00% VARIANCE N/A 148 WOODLAWN AVENUE PROPOSED PLAN - PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AREA UNDER EAVE CALCULATION 148 WOODLAWN AVENUE EXISTING PLAN - ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AREA UNDER EAVE CALCULATION AREA WIDTH A 23.00 B 26.00 C 3.50 D 7.25 TOTAL LOT 50.00 6.0' LOT COVERAGE DEPTH AREA 4.00 92.00 SF 34.00 884.00 SF 16.20 56.70 SF 14.80 107.30 SF 1140.00 SF 130.00 6500.00 SF 17.54% ALLOWED 10.00% VARIANCE 7.54% (EXISTING NONCONFORMITY) ®1 148 WOODLAWN AVENUE PROPOSED PLAN - ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AREA UNDER EAVE CALCULATION 8.0' 34.0' AREA WIDTH DEPTH AREA A 26.00 42.00 1092.00 SF B 12.00 34.00 408.00 SF TOTAL 1500.00 SF 110]�llexill�Ki1xlIl=l-UtiIlifill i; LOT COVERAGE 23.08% ALLOWED 10.00% VARIANCE 13.08% & A1, Ley Cwjc., XV 031 P30 IrL� 150, 0 If WOODLA\.A/iJ A-VUJUE t%'Aft- vv 6wqjm S IMV.ALA4 �RLACE 1 cpm,. LAADS 2 fpm g. 0 pmg- 0 S Tr_ bL 148 WCO Awi� Avt,,I\.� 1C)l Stellato Residence Addition Bulk and Area Summary Revised 7/28/19 AREA CALCULATIONS Description Lot Area Existing Building Footprint Principal Building Accessory Building Proposed Building Footprint Principal Building (Existing + Addition) Accessory Building (Existing + Addition) Existing Impervious Footprint Principal Building Accessory Building Patio Sidewalk Driveway Total Ex. Impervious Area Existing Permeable Area Existing Percent Permeable Proposed Impervious Footprint Principal Building Accessory Building Sidewalk Sidewalk Driveway Driveway Proposed Impervious Area Proposed Permeable Area Proposed Percent Permeable BULK & AREA SUMMARY Length (FT) Width (FT) Area (SF) 130 50 6,500.0 (see attached plan for calc) 11748.0 (see attached plan for calc) 11140.0 (see attached plan for calc) 2,007.0 (see attached plan for calc) 1,500.0 1,748.0 1,140.0 12 20 240.0 90 3 270.0 35 21 735.0 Length (FT) Width (FT) 90 3 30 4 8 20 15 9 Description Required Existing Min. Lot Size/2-Units (SF) 8,000.0 6,500.0 * Min. Avg. Lot Width (FT) 80.0 50.0 * Max. Principal Building Coverage (%) 30.0 26.9 Max. Accessory Building Coverage (%) 10.0 17.5 * Principal Building Setbacks (measured from roof overhang) Min. Principal Bldg. Front Setback (FT) 10.0 1.5 * Min. Principal Bldg. Rear Setback (FT) 25.0 77.0 Min. Prin. Bldg. Left Side Setback (FT) 4.0 0.5 * Min. Prin. Bldg. Right Side Setback (FT) 4.0 14.5 Min. Prin. Bldg. Total Side Setback (FT) 12.0 15.0 Min. Prin. Bldg. 1st Floor Area/2-sty (SF) 800.0 11748.0 Max. Principal Building Height (FT) 60.0 36.7 Min. Distance From Accessory Bldg. to (measured from roof overhang, unless noted): Principal Building (measured wall to wall, FT) 5.0 35.5 Front Line (FT) 10.0 97.0 Left Side Line (FT) 5.0 3.5 * Right Side Line (FT) 5.0 20.0 Rear Line (FT) 5.0 0.0 * Minimum Percent Permeable (%) 25.0 36.4 * Indicates existing non -conformity 4,133.0 2,367.0 36.4 Area (SF) 2,007.0 1,500.0 270.0 120.0 160.0 135.0 4,192.0 2,308.0 35.5 Proposed Variance No Change No Change 30.9 0.9 23.1 13.1 No Change 50.0 No Change No Change No Change 2,007.0 No Change 10.0 89.0 No Change 7.0 No Change 35.5