Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200760 Trimble Residence Correspondance (4) 1/11/2021 Zimbra Zimbra jennifer.merriman@sa ratoga-springs.org Re: January 11, 2021 ZBA meeting item: 139 Grand Avenue, Trimble Accessory Structure Area Variance Request From : Maureen Curtin <maureenacurtin@aol.com> Mon, Jan 11, 2021 03:00 PM Subject : Re: January 11, 2021 ZBA meeting item: 139 Grand Avenue, Trimble Accessory Structure Area Variance Request To : Patrick Cogan <patrick.cogan©saratoga-springs.org> Cc :Jennifer Merriman <jennifer.merriman@saratoga- spri ngs.org>, amanda tucker <amanda.tucker@saratoga-springs.org>, Meg Kelly <meg.kelly@saratoga-springs.org>, Michele Madigan <m ichele.mad iga n @saratoga-spri ngs.org>, John Franck <john.franck@saratoga-springs.org>, Skip Scirocco <skip.scirocco@saratoga-springs.org>, robin dalton <robin.dalton©saratoga-springs.org>, Lisa Shields <lisa.shields@saratoga-springs.org>, Deirdre Ladd <deirdre.ladd@saratoga-springs.org>, marie masterson <ma rie.masterson @saratoga-spri ngs.org>, joe onei l l <joe.oneill@saratoga-springs.org>, eileen finneran <eileen.finneran©saratoga-springs.org>, vince deleonardis <vince.deleonardis@saratoga-springs.org>, Susan Barden <susan.barden@saratoga-springs.org>, John Kaufmann <john.kaufmann21@gmail.com> Dear Mr. Cogan, If this is the case, then there is a loophole in our Zoning Ordinance which I hope the City Council will correct in our UDO. If the use is not permitted, which is exactly what Mr. Kaplan, ZBA chair, stated, then it would require a Use Variance. An accessory structure is permitted in our zoning district, but not with finished habitable space over it. Furthermore, you can't have it both ways, even though this is what is happening here. A use is not permitted, therefore no Area Variances need be applied for either, so no dimensional requirements need to be followed. This truly is a failure in our Zoning Ordinance. We oppose the use and location of this structure that is not permitted in our neighborhood. Sincerely, Maureen Curtin Sent from my iPad https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=115847&tz=America/New_York 1/8 1/11/2021 Zimbra On Jan 11, 2021, at 2:30 PM, Patrick Cogan <patrick.cogan@saratoga- springs.org> wrote: Ms. Curtin, I don't expect that the City Council or Deputies would be able to address your comments and concerns, as it would not be entirely appropriate for Council to comment on an application in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I also would not presume to speak for any of the members of Council, but I would like to provide some clarification on the subject of area variance vs. use variance from my perspective as Zoning Officer. I offer no comments on the merit of the application or on your objections to the application, as that is not my role in the process. The Zoning Board is tasked with evaluating the balance between the benefit to the applicant and the potential detriment to the neighborhood or community and I fully believe they shall do so. Please note that by signing the denial of the application, I have already made a de facto determination regarding the type of relief which would be required for the application to move forward. I offer the following as a point of clarification: Specific to the procedural question raised, I would respectfully disagree with your assertion that this application would require a use variance or that this is a loophole in the current Zoning Ordinance. The application is for a residential accessory structure. This is a permitted accessory use in the UR-3 zoning district. The proposed accessory structure meets all dimensional requirements of the UR-3 area and bulk table. The requested relief is from the definition of "Accessory Structure (Residential)" which states that the structure is unfinished and uninhabitable - an imposed physical requirement. The applicant wishes to have finished and habitable space within a residential accessory structure and is seeking relief from the physical requirement. There is no obvious numerical value that can be assigned to the physical requirement, so the applicant must seek 100% relief. This factors in to the ZBA's evaluation of whether the request is "substantial". The activities proposed by the applicant within the finished accessory structure are entirely consistent with typical activities allowed in conjunction with a single family residence. They do not change the underlying use of the property. Conducting activities already allowed on the property in a different location on the property would be evaluated as an area variance (relief from dimensional or physical requirements imposed by applicable zoning regulations). If the proposed use of the accessory structure was not consistent with the allowed uses within the zoning district, a use variance would be required. That is not the case with this application. Further, this application for an area variance for finished / habitable space within a residential accessory structure is in keeping with the dozens (if not hundreds) of prior applications where the same relief was evaluated by the ZBA. Significant https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=115847&tz=America/New_York 2/8 1/11/2021 Zimbra precedent has been established. To my knowledge, there is no precedent in City / ZBA procedure or relevant zoning case law that supports evaluating this type of appeal as a use variance. Please note that while municipal zoning laws vary widely, the procedure and parameters for evaluating a variance from those zoning laws is regulated by New York State in a fairly well argued and established framework. The City's procedure and treatment of this application is consistent with those regulations. Neighbors have every right to object to the application based on the potential impacts of the proposed project. The ZBA has every right to deny the application or to impose conditions on the approval that limit the activities or timeframe that activities can be conducted within the accessory structure. My intention is that this response will be entered into the record as addressing the procedural questions you have raised without commenting on the substantive objections. If the ZBA wishes to seek guidance from legal counsel regarding area vs use variance, they may do so on the record. If the ZBA requests a determination or further clarification from me, I'm happy to provide it. I do not believe either of these actions to be necessary in order to decide the matter in front of the board. Thank you, Patrick Cogan Zoning and Building Inspector City of Saratoga Springs (518) 587-3550 x2491 From: "Maureen Curtin" <maureenacurtin@aol.com> To: "Jennifer Merriman" <jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org>, "amanda tucker" <amanda.tucker@saratoga-springs.org> Cc: "Meg Kelly" <meg.kelly@saratoga-springs.org>, "Michele Madigan" <michele.madigan@saratoga-springs.org>, "John Franck" <john.franck@saratoga-springs.org>, "Skip Scirocco" <skip.scirocco@saratoga- springs.org>, "robin dalton" <robin.dalton@saratoga-springs.org>, "Lisa Shields" <lisa.shields©saratoga-springs.org>, "Deirdre Ladd" <deirdre.ladd©saratoga- springs.org>, "marie masterson" <marie.masterson@saratoga-springs.org>, "joe oneill" <joe.oneill@saratoga-springs.org>, "eileen finneran" <eileen.finneran©saratoga-springs.org>, "vince deleonardis" <vince.deleonardis©saratoga-springs.org>, "Bradley Birge" <bradley.birge@saratoga-springs.org>, "Susan Barden" <susan.barden@saratoga-springs.org>, "Patrick Cogan" <patrick.cogs n @sa ratoga-spri ngs.org> Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 1:20:06 PM Subject: January 11, 2021 ZBA meeting item: 139 Grand Avenue, Trimble Accessory Structure Area Variance Request CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links. https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=115847&tz=America/New_York 3/8 1/11/2021 Zimbra Dear Ms. Merriman, We would appreciate your sharing our letter with ZBA members before this weekend. We also are providing it to members of the City Council and Planning Department because if there is a loophole in our current Zoning Ordinance, it needs to be addressed immediately in the city's upcoming UDO. However, we believe, and hope, that this is an incorrect ZBA application rather than a Zoning Ordinance failure. Thank you. January 7, 2021 To: The Zoning Board of Appeals Fr: Dublin Square Board, representing 13 homes in the immediate area of 139 Grand Avenue Re: Opposition to Trimble AREA VARIANCE request, which we believe should be a USE VARIANCE request, to construct an accessory dwelling unit with finished second floor space at 139 Grand Avenue. Nearby neighbors of 139 Grand Avenue oppose the proposed accessory structure garage with a finished space over it, as this is not a permitted use in the UR- 3 District. It would be absurd to have a Zoning Ordinance that would relieve someone from all dimensional requirements (setbacks and other physical requirements) if they requested and were granted permission to build a structure in a district where the use for that structure was not permitted. However, this is what the ZBA chair stated at the December 14, 2020 meeting. The ZBA chair said that since the use is not permitted, it is therefore 100% relieved from all dimensional requirements. The question therefore is, why is this use being permitted? This question was never addressed at the last ZBA meeting. Zoning Ordinance, 8.3.1 Area Variance states: "An area variance provides relief from the dimensional or physical requirements imposed by the applicable zoning regulations. An area variance does not authorize any change in the type of use of the property. Therefore, the applicant should be requesting a Use Variance, not an Area Variance. A Use Variance requires different Evaluation Criteria for approval than an Area Variance. https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=115847&tz=America/New_York 4/8 1/11/2021 Zimbra This application needs to be resubmitted as a request for a Use Variance, not an Area Variance. Nevertheless, we have answered the questions the ZBA asks in making its determination for an Area Variance. For an Area Variance, which this application isn't, the ZBA would consider the following five Evaluation Criteria, which we have addressed: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of SEP] the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: Current zoning laws have helped maintain and preserve neighborhoods throughout the city. The applicant's request is for a use that is not permitted, for good reasons, in a UR-3 Zoning District. When people invest hundreds of thousands of dollars purchasing their homes, they depend upon the zoning laws that exist to protect their investments and families. Several neighbors purchased nearby properties with the understanding from the city's Zoning Ordinance that dimensional requirements and use requirements would be followed. Permitting this requested, prohibited, use in our neighborhood not only would negatively affect our quality of life by reducing privacy, but also our real estate values. We do not believe that the character of our neighborhood or the value of our properties should be diminished to maximize the comforts of one property owner. In the application submitted, the applicant states, "The proposed use as a home office workspace will take place largely within normal working hours and will have no adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood." However, at the December 14, 2020 ZBA meeting, the applicant stated that the office "set away from the house is very conducive to our three kids"to sleep. He stated that he was doing international calling at anytime during the night, such as at 3 AM. Therefore, he wanted to get away from the rest of the house for night time calls, so not to disturb the rest of his family. But, what about disturbing the rest of the neighborhood? What about n ig htl ig hts and noises for all the neighbors nearby? https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=115847&tz=America/New_York 5/8 1/11/2021 Zimbra Furthermore, Mr. Trimble went on to state that this would be a good "place to play instruments." Neighbors do not support a home office used for"guitars and amplifiers," that won't disturb his family, but would disturb other families in the neighborhood. The applicant wants to place this large NOT PERMITTED structure on the property line furthest from his house, so he can have a backyard, and so he can provide peace and quiet for his family, This location is right next to the property line and home of the adjoining property. It is not up to this Board to accommodate the applicant's desires at the cost of all others in the neighborhood, and disregard the Zoning Ordinance in the process. This is not a permitted use in the neighborhood, and for good reasons. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance: There are feasible alternatives that were disregarded by the applicant. The applicant was asked at the December 14, 2020 ZBA meeting why he couldn't build a garage attached to the house with an office over it. He responded, we could, but we "didn't entertain this." He said, "the grade drops down, not that we couldn't build it up." A garage attached to the house with an office over it definitely is feasible and doable, and is permitted in our Zoning Ordinance. The other permitted alternative is a detached garage and an addition on the house for an office space. Another justification being used by the applicant is that he would be making use of the existing curb cut. Using the current curb cut would put the garage with habitable space "literally right against the property line"the applicant states. (See picture attached below.) This curb cut should be dismissed in determining the location of this structure, as an expansion of the curb cut would have to be made anyway. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial: The requested area variance is substantial, as it is not a permitted use in this neighborhood. https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=115847&tz=America/New_York 6/8 1/11/2021 Zimbra As stated above, Zoning Ordinance, 8.3.1 Area Variance states: "An area variance provides relief from the dimensional or physical requirements imposed by the applicable zoning regulations. An area variance does not authorize any change in the type of use of the property." Therefore, the applicant should be requesting a Use Variance, not an area variance. "8.3.2 Use Variance states: A use variance provides relief to allow the use of land for a purpose that is otherwise not allowed or is prohibited by the applicable zoning regulations." "The ZBA shall not grant a use variance unless the applicant has demonstrated that applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship." The applicant has not demonstrated this. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: [}I] The proposed location of the garage/office space would create negative noise and light impact on surrounding neighbors, as discussed above. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the ZBA, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of an area variance: }I The alleged difficulty was self-created by the applicant, as the applicant only pursued one possibility, the one not permitted in the neighborhood by our Zoning Ordinance. We believe the applicant submitted the wrong type of application to the ZBA. We request the ZBA reject this application as presented. Thank you. Respectfully submitted by the Dublin Square Board, representing 13 homes in the immediate 139 Grand Avenue neighborhood. https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=115847&tz=America/New_York 7/8 1/11/2021 Zimbra cc: Due to the soon to be released final draft of the UDO, City Council members and other city administrators have been sent a copy of this letter, because if this situation is a loophole in our current Zoning Ordinance, then it needs to be addressed and corrected in the final UDO. <image.jpg> Picture of yard at 139 Grand Ave. The applicant is proposing the garage/office be placed at the end of his property, where the stockade fence ends on the left of the picture. It should be attached to the house, which cannot even be seen in this picture. The applicant has more than enough yard space to attach the garage/office to the house, as permitted in our Zoning Ordinance. Confidentiality/Privilege Notice: This e-mail communication and any files transmitted with it contain privileged and confidential information from the City of Saratoga Springs and are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it has been addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or taking any other action with respect to the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation. https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=115847&tz=America/New_York 8/8