Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200345 Guanill Two-Family Use Variance NOD ,r-voGA, fGallagher,CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Keith Kaplan, Chair Brad Galla Vice Chair Terrance Gallogly 5 'f ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS cz) Cheryl Grey *), 1 Matthew Gutch CITY HALL-474 BROADWAYRosemary Ratcliff SARATOGA SPRINGS,NEW YORK 12866 f`� Gage Simpson c 518-587-3550 , 'co N \ WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG Kathleen O Connor,alternate R.'ORATE° #20200345 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF ROSEMARIE GUANILL 144 WEST CIRCULAR STREET SARATOGA SPRINGS NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 144 West Circular Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.74-1-32 on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicant having applied for a use variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to maintain a two-family residence in an Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 3rd day of August 2020 through the 11th day of January 2021. In consideration of the unnecessary hardship as shown by the submitted application,supplemental documentation and oral presentation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, I move that a use variance to permit a two-family residence in the UR-2 District, be approved for the following reasons: I. The applicant has demonstrated that she cannot realize a reasonable financial return on her initial investment for any currently permitted use on the property. At the outset, the Board notes that the applicant has provided extensive documentation with regard to this application. That documentation indicates that the applicant purchased the property in October 2012 for $212,000, and that she did so relying on publicly available information, including certain publicly available records from the City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County, and the Eastern New York Regional MLS, which classified the property as a two-family residence. The applicant stated that she purchased the property as a two-family residence believing that she would be able to supplement her income by renting the attached apartment during the six-week racing season. The applicant also indicated that she would not have purchased the property had it not been for this two-family classification. Over the course of the next several years, the applicant has made substantial financial investments into the property, including significant financial investments towards maintaining and improving the apartment that has been used for rental purposes. A detailed financial analysis was provided to the Board with supporting documentation that indicates that the applicant has spent over$60,000 pro rata on specific costs that can be categorized as expenses relating to the apartment. These costs are in addition to approximately$120,000 that the applicant has incurred to maintain and improve the premises as a whole. The applicant has also provided other important information that supports this conclusion. The applicant has provided two appraisals, including one appraisal that indicates that the value of the property as a single- family residence is approximately$26,000 less than the value of the property as a two-family. The applicant has also provided a detailed breakdown of income that has been generated from the seasonal rental of the apartment during the summer racing season, as well as an estimate from a local real estate company that indicates the future income to be lost in the event that this use variance is not granted. Next,the applicant provided documentation that indicates that this property has been taxed as a two-family residence, and that insurance and utilities have been paid on the property since at least 2012 as if it were a two-family residence. Finally, the applicant has provided an estimate from a contractor that indicates that it would cost approximately$52,000 to retrofit the premises from a two-family to a single-family residence. When all of this information is viewed in totality, and after careful deliberation, it is the Board's conclusion that the applicant cannot realize a reasonable financial return on her initial investment for the currently permitted use on the property,which is a single-family residence. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the financial hardship is unique to this property and this applicant and does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood. The documentation provided to the Board indicates that the applicant purchased this property and undertook a significant financial investment maintaining and improving a two-family residence. This two-family residence pre-existed her ownership, and the historical documentation suggests that this property has been identified as a two-family since the 1980s, and was known in the neighborhood to include an apartment, which is unique in a neighborhood that consists of single-family residences. It appears, by all of the documentation provided,that this property was treated by the City of Saratoga Springs and Saratoga County as a lawful two-family residence. In addition to the Saratoga County and MLS listing as a two-family residence, the applicant has provided a building permit issued by the City of Saratoga Springs for roofing work and the construction of a detached garage in 2014 without any mention that the property was not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The property also appears to have been taxed, by both Saratoga County and the City of Saratoga Springs, as a two-family residence,which is a significant factor for several considerations of this application. In sum, the historical record and the extensive documentation provided establishes that this property and the financial hardship to the applicant would be unique, and therefore would not apply to a substantial portion of the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The applicant has demonstrated, and the Board finds,that the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The record indicates that the apartment has been in existence for many years, and that it has only been used for seasonal rentals during the summer racing season. The apartment has been known to many in the neighborhood, and no objections were raised by neighbors with regard to this application. To the contrary, several members of the community commented during public hearings that they were in support of this application and the continued use of the property with the apartment. As such, it is the Board's conclusion that the granting of this use variance, especially with the conditions listed below, will not have any meaningful impact on the essential character of the neighborhood. 4. The applicant has demonstrated that the alleged hardship has not been self-created. The applicant states that she was unaware that use of the premises as a two-family was not permitted at the time of purchase, and the extensive record indicates that, for all intents and purposes, this property has been treated as a two-family residence by the City of Saratoga Springs and Saratoga County for a significant period of time prior to the applicant's purchase of the property. There is no indication in this record that the applicant created, or contributed to,the alleged hardship. Adopted by the following vote: AYES: 6 (K. Kaplan, B. Gallagher, T. Gallogly, M. Gutch, R. Ratcliff, G. Simpson) NAYES: I (C. Grey) Dated:January I I, 2021 This variance shall expire 18 months following the filing date of such decision unless the necessary building permit has been issued and actual construction begun as per 240-8.5.1. 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, seven members of the Board being present. SIGNATURE: 1/21/2021 CHAIR DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.