Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210598 Driscoll Use Variance NOD �`l'�'<<� CITY OF $ARATOGA $PRINGS Keith Kaplan,cna�� y��. SF f Brad Gallagher,Vice Chair : ^ "�'f i ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Terrance Gallogly ` �� • A � �.� Cheryl Grey � �'"r��� � QTY HALL-474 BROADWAY Matthew Gutch / r ' SARATOGASPRINGS,NEwYoRi<12866 Gage Simpson ' �;'�1,� Emily Bergmann - _ 518-587-3550 ^`��k�'ORqTED ,�� WWWSARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG #20210598 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Joseph Driscoll 125 Mazera Rd Schuylerville NY 12871 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 169 Washington Street in the City of Saratoga Springs,New York being tax parcel number 165.66-1-6 on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicant having applied for a use variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit 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 9t� day of August through the 27th day of September 2021. I move that a use variance to permit a two-family residence in the UR-2 District, as per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be denied for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that he cannot realize a reasonable financial return on his initial investment for any currently permitted use on the property. The applicant stated he purchased the property for $80,000 in a private sale from his parents in 1994. He further noted that over the course of the next several years, he made approximately $250,000 in capital investments into the property, including roofing,plumbing and electrical, as well as interior and exterior refurbishments. He has provided tax records showing a consistent pattern of losses on the property from renting it out as a single family, and has provided written explanations of how other permitted uses such as bed-and-breakfast and rooming house, would not be feasible. However, the applicant's response to the Board's request for market valuation was a set of three properties with dissimilar characteristics to the subject property. The property has not been listed for sale, and the applicant has not had an appraisal done. The Board notes that the City's own assessor's website provides a comparable nearby property, with smaller lot,having sold in March 2020 for $660,000. The Board concludes that insufficient evidence has been presented to conclude that a reasonable financial return cannot be realized on this property. 2. Given the insufficient nature of the evidence of lack of reasonable financial return, the Board does not find sufficient evidence that the applicant's financial hardship is unique to this property and does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood. The Board notes that the applicant has provided information on nearby properties, showing a mix of multi-family homes (presumably with pre-existing non-conforming status) and single-family homes in the area. However, the status of the subject property as a single family residence is clearly noted on the City and County databases, and that status is consistent with the district objectives. The Board does note the unique aspect of the owner's family having owned the property for many years, but cannot conclude on the uniqueness of the financial hardship. 3. The applicant has demonstrated, and the Board finds, that the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant has identified other nearby properties with multi-family uses. The applicant also has noted that the other permitted uses including bed- and-breakfast as well as rooming house would not be consistent with neighborhood character. Furthermore, as the applicant noted,he purchased this property from his family to be a third generation owner of this residence, and undertoolc a significant financial investment maintaining and improving the residence to ensure the functionaliry of the residence and, in his words, "meet historical district standards." 4. The applicant has not demonstrated that the alleged hardship has not been self-created. The applicant states that he was unaware that use of the premises as a two-family was not permitted at the time of purchase, but the City and County records make it clear that this property was zoned as a single-family residence at that time. The applicant's own subsequent renovation work and statements on the record make it clear that the propei-ty has been operated as a single-family residence in recent years; precluding the status of pre-existing non-conforming multi-family use and therefore requiring the application for a use variance. Conclusion: The Board notes the requirement for all four of the use variance criteria outlined above to be met, for a use variance to be granted. The self-creation of the need for this variance, combined with the insufficiency of evidence that a reasonable financial return cannot be realized, would each preclude the granting of a use variance in this case. The Board finds that neither of these requirements have been met, and further cannot conclude on uniqueness of the hardship. The application is therefore denied. it is so moved. Dated: September 27, 2021 Adopted by the following vote: AYES: 6 (K. Kaplan, B. Gallagher, M. Gutch, G. Simpson, J. Daley, C. Grey) NAYES: 0 Dated: September 27, 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, four members of the Board being present. SIGNATURE: 09�2$�2021 CHAIR � DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.