HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200345 Guanill Two-Family Use Variance Narrative TIlE LAW OFFICES OF
M . ELIZABETH CORENO, E,Q. R. Libby Coreno, Esq.
libby@corenolaw.com
December 8, 2020
Mr. Keith Kaplan, Chairman
City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
Re: Guanill, Rose
144 W. Circular Street— Use Variance Application
Dear Chairman Kaplan,
As you may recall, my office represents Rose Guanill in her application before the
Zoning Board of Appeals ("Board") for a use variance of her long-standing two-family residence
at 144 West Circular Street in Saratoga Springs. At our last appearance before the Board, the
applicant was directed to provide a more detailed delineation of her expenses and estimates
related to the "reasonable rate of return" under the use variance analysis, as well as to more fully
expand upon her contention that there is no other permitted use in the zone which would not
cause an equal or greater hardship.
In the prior submissions from the applicant, the fiscal data incorporated funds expended
to make improvements to the main residence; not limited to the apartment area of the structure
solely. The Board indicated that it sought an analysis which segmented the main residence
improvements from the apartment improvements in order to do a side-by-side analysis. As
reflected in the updated submission, the applicant's data has recategorized to reflect
investments/maintenance and operation of the apartment as a stand-alone use from the main
portion of the residence. I respectfully direct the Board to those figures summarized in Table 1
below under line item "Pro Rata and Explicit Costs Assigned to Apartment."
In addition to the foregoing, the applicant submits the following to the Board for
consideration:
1. Decrease in Hillt_op Construction estimate from $56.788 to $52A68
a. The second kitchen was eliminated due to the highly limited buyer pool who
would require a second kitchen in a home for religious purposes.
b. A dedicated door to the outside is removed and resided with vinyl to cover the
former egress, in light of Section 6.4.4(c) of the Zoning Code which provides that
"there shall be no exclusive access to the temporary accessory dwelling."
Similarly, the two separate front doors are consolidated into one main entry.
c. Pursuant to email correspondence between Chuck Marshall and the City
Assessor's office (attached), remediation work must be completed in order for the
Property Classification to be changed from -220 —2 Family Res" (current) to
Kaplan, Keith
December 8, 2020
Page 2 of 2
-210 -1 Family Res" (modified) for purposes of accurate disclosure upon listing
the property for sale.
2. Inclusion of Costs for Maintaining and Furnishing the Apartment: Both the costs to
furnish and maintain the apartment have been included in order to provide consistency
for relevant expenses necessary to generate the rental income reported.
3. Correspondence from The Appraisal Company: An analysis conducted by William
Moore of The Appraisal Company demonstrates that the price difference (-$26,000)
between purchase price legal two-family (which the applicant believed she was paying
for) and a compliant single-family at the time of purchase.
4. Correspondence from Racing City Reahy: The opinion of realty expert in seasonal
rentals in the Saratoga Springs market for the potential loss of income (—$57,062) without
the Board's granting of a variance.
5. A Revised Summary Table of the Fiscal Data Requested by the Board
Table I: Modified Financial Implication of 14.1 West Circular Stre e t
Date Source Action Financial Implication
10/19/2012 Imagemate Purchase Price ($212000)
9/26/2019 Split Rock Real Estate Appraisals Appraised Value S397,000
9/26/2019 1-10op Construction , Retro Fit to Single Family
2012-Current Rental Income $20850
10/27/20 Pro Rah and Explicit Costs Assigned to Apartment ($60.607)
10/27/20 Owner's Cash Position $92,775
10/27/20 Difference in Sinale Vs Multi-Fami (A Jra kill Com)aiiN Letter) ($26.000)
11/22/20 Racily?,City Realty Loss of Income ($57.062)
Net Cash Position to Owner S9,713
In addition, the Board requested information about the possible conversion of the
property into other permitted uses in the zone. In the UR-2, the only explicitly permitted use is a
single-family residence and the applicant's burden to demonstrate hardship is limited to
permitted uses in the zone. Therefore. the applicant respectfully requests that the Board consider
the unique hardship demonstrated through her application and supplement materials.
We look forward to the opportunity to discuss the enclosed with the Board at its
December 14th meeting. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (518)
682-6901./Thank you for your continued time and attention to this matter.
..M. Eli keici Coreno, Esq. -----------
.
MEC /
Enc.
cc: Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals
Law Office of M. Elizabeth Coreno, Esq. P.C.
63 Putnam Street, Suite 202
Saratoga Springs,New York 12866
(518)421-1366