HomeMy WebLinkAbout20211217 90 Catherine Subdivision Public Comment Sandra A. Williams
95 Catherine Street
Saratoga Spring, NY. �2866
�bs-aoklane@�m ail.com
914-649-1251
Zoning Board of Appeals
City of 5aratoga 5prings
474 Broadway
Sarataga S�rings, NY 12866
Re: Variance Request ta Subdivide lot at 90 Catherine St, Sarataga Springs, NY Project Nurr�ber
za2��z1�
Sir/Madam,
My name is Sartdra Wiiliarr�s and I live across the street a#95 Cathe�-ine Street. f am a�pealing
to you to nat appro�e the 90 Catherine Subdivisior� request.
1. It is my understanc4ing that when considering a variance for a subdivision, aN the parcels
in the applicatian must be in comp[iance with currer�# zoning regulations. 7his is a UR-Z
zone. The Gurrent hause at 90 Catherine St is a 2-family apartment building. There is no
mention in the application for any mactifieation to#he existing home td convert it inta a
single-farnily residence.
2. I submit that the purp�ase of the current zoning regulatior�s is to limit Crowded housing
and protect open spaces. There are numerou5 other p�rcels in the imnnediat�Wicinity of
the subject premises that do nat meet the d�m�n5ional requirernents of the UR-2 Zone.
The majority, if not all, of these properties we�e bu�1t priar to the current ztaning
regulations, �'h��efore, the fact that there are "many parceCs many of which are iess
comp�iant than the resufting 2 lots requ�sted in this application" is irrele�ant because
they are grandfathered in.
3. After the proposed subdi�ision, both lots would nat be in cornpliance wi#h the current
district requirements in lot sjze, lot width, in t�e case of propos+ed !ot 2, cv�erage. By
wai�ing#I�ese district r�q�airements, we are candoning the ir�creased de�sity af the lot�
which is detrimental ta the character of the neighborh�vcf and hnusing prices.
A. E�idence o#protecting open �pace and limitin�de�elopment is rtery clear in
surrounding properties. In z014, I purc�as�d 95 and 97 Catherine S°t. ln
2018, I requested a variance for a smaE1 addition. As a co�tfition ofthe
variance being granted, I had tn corr��ine the lots thus preventing r�e from
ever building a second resid�nce on that property.
B. 5imilarly, 91 Catherine St uvas a grandfathered Z famiEy residen�e. When
changes were made to that pro�erty, it was req�ired ta henceforth be a
s�ngle-family residence.
4. When the v�ariance request was submi'tted, the applicant s#ated tF�at he/she cannot
realize � reasonable financiaf return on the initial inv�estment for any eurrerttly
permitted use of the praperty. The applicant is an exper�encetf real estate in�estor a+�d
was aware o#the status of the praperty prior to purchasing it. While f recognize and
appreciate the well-�auilt hous�s Ms. Donlon has built in the area, any assertion or
argument that the neighborhood would be improved by subdividing ar�d constructing an
additional hame on the new parcel while maintaining a twa-family home on the
remaining parcel is na�t an improvernent. It uialates the zoning regulations which de#ine
what are and are not impro�ements—i.e. single family homes �n 65�D square#oat
lots. Furthermore, protecting the lat size is, in my opinion consistent with mainta�ning
the character of the neighborhood.
Bas�d on the information submitted, I am not in f��or o�subc(i�ic�ing the fot. Limiting new
residences and maintaining apen spaces (because they are sa limi#ed) er�hances the �rroperty
�aiues and the neighborhnod ambi�nce.
Respec#fully subrr►itted,
l � ,
J �'� �,
� , ,
��G�� � � ��`l�-.
. .� /� �
,�'
Sar�dra A. Wifliams