HomeMy WebLinkAbout20211217 90 Catherine Subdivision Public Comment (5) March 9, 2019
Keith Kaplan, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
Saratoga City Hall
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs,NY 12866
Re: 90 Catherine Street,Project#20211217
Dear Sir:
This letter supplements the submission of February 11, 2022 regarding the above-
referenced application for an area variance and subdivision of a lot. The undersigned represents
Sandra Williams, the owner of 95 Catherine Street(Tax I.D. 165.36-2-12).
It is our understanding that the above referenced application is currently pending before the
Saratoga Springs Planning Board for an advisory opinion regarding the proposed subdivision. A
copy of this submission is being sent to the Planning Board. As was stated in the original
submission my client opposes the proposed subdivision. Further analysis of the applicant's
submission raises points not made in the original submission.
Anal,ysis of the lot sizes in the Catherine Street Corridor.
For purposes of this submission we refer to applicant's summary of the lots in the
Catherine Street corridor. The area is zoned as UR-2 single family residential with a minimum lot
area of 6,600 square feet. The applicant proposes subdividing the current 10,675 square foot lot
into two lots of 5,441 square feet and 5,234 square feet. This is respectively a reduction of 18%
and 21%below the minimum lot size for this zoning. A reduction of this size is not consistent
with the size of the other lots in the corridor and does not warrant a variance.
Using the applicants summary of the lots in the Catherine Street corridor, the average lot
size is 6,570.7 square feet which is roughly consistent with the zoning. Applicant correctly states
that 50% of the lots are smaller than 6,600. Since many of the structures were built long before
zoning this is to be expected. It does not justify granting a variance from the other 50% of the lots
which meet current zoning standards. Further, if one considers the size of the proposed
subdivided lots, only 23 of the 64 or 35% of the lots are smaller. Thus roughly 2/3 of the lots in
the corridor will be larger than the proposed subdivided lots. t.
The situation is even more extreme if analyzed in terms of living units. 90 Catherine Street
is currently occupied as a two family residence. This does not comply with the existing zoning
standards but is presumably"grandfathered" in. The applicant is not proposing to convert the
existing structure at 90 Catherine into a single family residence. Thus, the application should be
considered not for two single family residences but actually for three residences. If the proposal is
analyzed in this respect, each residence will have about 3,558 square feet or only 53% of the
required minimum square footage- a 47%reduction in size. Moreover, only 7 of the 64 lots on
the Catherine Street corridor are smaller and none are permitted multiple family residences.
The proposed lot size is inconsistent with lot sizes of adjoining properties.
While applicant attempts to characterize their proposed subdivision as consistent with
average lot size in the corridor, the fact is that Catherine Street varies significantly. Consider some
of the lots immediately surrounding 90 Catherine- the lots sizes are as follows:
89 Catherine- 7,500 square feet
91 Catherine- 11,250 square feet
95 Catherine- 11,250 square feet
96 Catherine- 5,000 square feet
223 Maple Avenue - 18,295 square feet(recently subdivided into two lots, the smaller
being 6,413 square feet or a 2.8% variance from the square footage requirements.)
Multiple familv residences in this area are not allowed when variances are sought.
The status of 90 Catherine is inconsistent with the existing zoning standards for the area. -
an issue which has repeatedly been addressed by this board. Very clearly the city wants single
family residences in the area. This was pointed out in two other submissions made to this board.
For example, both 95 Catherine and 91 Catherine with approximately the same sized lots as 90
Catherine were two family residences until several years aga When applications were made for
building permits and variances for these two homes the owners were informed that they were no
longer"grandfathered" as two family residences and had to be single family residences. In the
case of 95 Catherine, the record is even more extensive. Previously considered two parcels - 95
Catherine and 97 Catherine - the previous owners made an application to make 97 Catherine a
qualified building lot. This board turned down the application. Moreover, when a variance was
sought for an addition to 95 Catherine, the city required 95 and 97 Catherine to be combined as a
condition to granting the variance. It should also be observed that a recent application for 40
Second Street which sought to have a second dwelling on the premises in an existing garage was
denied by this board.
The factors to be considered when an area variance is sou�ht.
L Whether the benefit sought can be achieved by other feasible means.
The applicant states that there are no other feasible means by which the benefit can be
Page 2 of 5
achieved further stating that adjacent properties are not for sale. However, counsel for applicant
stated that some discussions had occurred between the owner of 96 Catherine and the applicant. If
that property was purchased, 90 and 96 combined could be subdivided into two lots easily
conforniing with zoning requirements. Whether this is economically feasible is beyond the scope
of this submission. Applicant can also place an accessory structure on the property fully
conforming with existing zoning standards. While living units are not permitted in accessory
structures, it can be the source of additional income.
2. Whether granting the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties.
The applicant states that granting the variance will not "alter the character of the
neighborhood."noting that other parcels in the "immediate" area do not meet the dimensional
requirements of UR-2 zoning. As became evident at the initial hearing on the application, some in
the neighborhood feel differently and no one voiced support for the application. All the adjacent
properties are single family residences. As was pointed out above, even properties (e.g. 95 and 91
Catherine) which had previously been considered two family residences were told when applying
for building permits that the properties were henceforth single family residences and a certificate
of occupancy would not be issued for a multiple family residence. Very clearly, multiple family
dwellings are no longer being permitted in the area. As was discussed above, the majority of the
surrounding parcels do meet the dimensional requirements for UR-2 zoning and it is debatable that
properties on Catherine a block or more away are"itnmediate".
3. Whether the variance is substantial.
As pointed out above, the variance sought is quite substantial. Roughly 2/3 of the lots on the
Catherine Street corridor would be larger than the two proposed lots. If the application is granted
allowing the existing building at 90 Catherine to remain a two family residence the resulting
square footage per residential unit is smaller than roughly 90% of all the parcels in the Catherine
Street corridor. By comparison, this board recently granted a variance for the property directly
behind 90 Catherine at 223 Maple Avenue permitting the creation of a second building lot of
6,413 square feet or 2.8%less than the required minimum. Applicant is requesting a much larger
and substantial variance.
Moreover it must be emphasized what applicant has requested is an area variance. Section 8.3.1
of the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance defines area variance as follows:
8.3.1 AREA VARTANCE
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.
The permitted use of properties in the area is single family residential. By failing to address the
Page 3 of 5
grandfathered use of 90 Catherine what applicants are requesting is in effect a use variance for the
90 Catherine. That is not allowed by Section 83.1.
Furthermore, the city zoning code addresses this situation. Saratoga Zoning Ordinance Section 5.3
provides as follows:
5.3 NONCONFORMING USES
5.3.1 CONTINUATION
A lawfully pre-existing, non-conforming use may be continued subject to the provisions
of this Section.
5.3.2 DISCONTINUANCE
A non-conforming use shall be deemed discontinued if it is not operated for at least
thirty (30) days in a calendar year and any future use of the property shall conform to
this Chapter.
5.3.5 CHANGE IN USE
If a non-conforming use is to be replaced or augmented by another use, the new and
any future use shall conform to this Chapter.
Since the proposed subdivision of the property "augments"the use of the parcel, the existing
structure at 90 Catherine must now comply with the zoning code.
4. Whether the variance will have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood
or district.
Subdividing the parcel at 90 Catherine into two substantially substandard lots will have an
adverse effect on the neighborhood. Applicant contends that given the existence of other
substandard lots in the area there won't be any adverse effect. This is a bit counterintuitive. If the
desired standard in the zoning ordinance is 6,600 square feet, it is diff'icult to see how creating
more substandard lots will not have adverse physical or environmental effects. In essence the
applicant is arguing that cramming more structures on substandard lots is acceptable because other
older lots (who have not sought a variance) exist. That in effect renders the zoning standard
useless.
5. Whether the alle�ed diff'iculty was self-created.
The applicant admits that she was aware of the restrictions on the property at the time she
purchased it.
Summary:
The application for a variance fails every standard the board is required to consider and
should be denied. The application requests a substantial waiver of the square footage
Page 4 of 5
requirements. It will have an undesirable effect upon the neighborhood. - a fact which was voiced
several adjoining property owners. Economic feasibility assumes a legal use for the property. The
zoning ordinance is very clear. A request for an area variance does not perforce mean that a
grandfathered nonconforming use of the property can continue. At the very least should the board
decide to permit the two substandard lots, applicant should be required as a condition to agree to
convert the existing structure at 90 Catherine into a single family residence consistent with the
zoning standards for the area.
Respectfully submitted
David C. Williams
DCW:dcw
CC: Gary and June Vail, Kevin McCane, Laura Kenyon, Saratoga Spring Planning Board
Please address all correspondence to our new address:
DC Williams and Associates
95 Catherine Street
Saratoga Springs,NY 12866
(917) 847-2136
Fax: 914 737-8628
dwilliams@attglobaLnet
Page 5 of 5