HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210696 85 Nelson Use Variance Public Comment (6) 9/23/21,9:56 AM Zimbra
Zimbra aneisha.samuels@saratoga-springs.org
Online Form Submittal: Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment
From : noreply@civicplus.com Wed, Sep 22, 2021 10:43 PM
Subject : Online Form Submittal: Land Use Board Agenda Public
Comment
To : aneisha samuels <aneisha.samuels@saratoga-
springs.org>, lisa shields <lisa.shields@saratoga-
springs.org>, amber upton <amber.upton@saratoga-
springs.org>
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.
Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment
SUBMIT COMMENTS REGARDING CITY PROJECTS
Thank you for submitting your comments. Your feedback will be forwarded
to the City's Planning Department and Land Use Board members. NOTE:
Comments submitted later than 12:00 noon on the day before the Land Use
Board meeting may not be reviewed prior to their meeting. All comments will
be added to the project file in the Planning Department.
Land Use Board Zoning Board of Appeals
Name Thomas Barkley
Email Address tbarkley@nycap.rr.com
Business Name Field not completed.
Address 93 Nelson Avenue
Clty Saratoga Springs
State NY
Zlp COCIe 12866
Phone Number 518-584-9087
Project Name 85 Nelson Use Variance
Project Number 20210696
Project Address 85 Nelson Avenue, Saratoga Springs
https://m.saratoga-spri ngs.org/h/pri ntmessage?i d=14438&tz=America/New_York 1/2
9/23/21,9:56 AM Zimbra
Comments I have spoken to the owner of the property, and I empathize
with his situation, but still stand in opposition to the variance.
One thing that is very clear is that this property is an Investment
for Mr. Waite, while my interest in my property and neighbor-
hood is that it is my Home. As an investor, Mr. Waite should
have done due diligence and verified that his property met all
local codes and zoning regulations, especially since he has
worked in related fields and has owned rental property before.
The appeal does not meet the four tests of hardship, e.g.: Of
course more units will yield more money; the current zoning
does not prevent him from earning a reasonable return as a
single family dwelling. Could I argue I am deprived of income if
I decided to split my house in two or three? What is considered
reasonable return on property is subjective; the owner indicated
a need for retirement income, yet I think he is younger than my-
self, and I am still working. If I said that I wished to retire, could
I put 3 units in my home? Needing to work in order to live is
hardly hardship. (That said, the property likely makes roughly
$30K per year parking cars.) As for the hardship being unique,
most of the properties on our block are zoned single family.
When my wife and I moved in 30 years ago, the homes were all
single family owner-occulpied. The appellant is trying to formal-
ize illegal units that had been added without zoning approval by
the prior owners; changes we were never informed of nor
asked about. I do not want to open the door for all nearby prop-
erties to become multi-unit rental properties, such that I do not
know my neighbors, and the open space next to my property to
be densely developed. I fear this variance will decrease my
property value and cause me a financial hardship. Lastly, the
hardship is indeed self-inflicted because of the inflated price
paid, the lack of due diligence, and/or the attempt to fly under
the zoning board's radar.
Attach Photo (optional) Field not completed.
Email not displaying correctly?VI2W It Ill yOUf bf'OWSeI".
https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=14438&tz=America/New_York 2/2