The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20211217 90 Catherine Subdivision Public Comment (7) �CWILLIAMS& p wtivw.dc�niilliamslav+,�.eam 470 Park Ave So. �212)368-7110 New Yark,�VY 1�016 {g14)737-8028 fax 8 Broak Lanr �:914�736-GG4U Cnit[anrlt Pllanor,NY 10567 �91��737-Bfi28 fax March 9, 2019 Keith Kaplan, Chairman Zoning Baard of Appeals Saratoga Gity Hall 4'74 Bxoad�ay Saratoga Springs,NY 128b6 Re: 90 Catherine Street, Piroject#20211217 Dear S�r= Tfais le�t�r supplemen�s the submission of February 11,2�22 regarding the above- refe�enced application for an area variance and subdivision of a�ot. The uridersigned represents Sandra�7iliiams,the owner of 95 Gatt�erine Street(Tax I.D. 165.3C-2-12}. It is our understanding that the above referenced applicat�on is currently pendin��efore t�e Sa�ratoga Springs Plaiuiing Board for an advisory opinion regarding the propased subdivision. A copy of this submissian is being sent ta the PIat�ning Baard A.s was stat�d i�the original submission my client opposes the proposed subdivisian. Further analysis of tiie applicant's submission ra�ses points noE ma�e in the or�ginal submission. Ana� sis of the 1Dt sizes in ti�e Catheri�e Street Corridor. For purposes of this submission we refer to applicaat's sumnaaty of th�lc�ts in the Cathez-i.�e Stt��et corridor. The area is zone�as UR-2 single family residential with a mu�imum lot axea af 6,fi00 square feet. The applicant praposes subdividing the current 10,675 square faat lot iz3to two lats of 5,44] square feet and 5,234 squar�feet_ This is respectively a reduction of 1$% and 2 i%i�elow the minimum lot size for t.�is zoning. A reduct�on of this size is nat corasistent witl�the size of the other lats in th�carridor and does not warrant a v�ri�nce. Usirzg t�xe app�icants sutnina�y af the lots in the Ca�hez-ine Sfreet corridor, the average lot size is b,57a.7 squa.re feet which is roughiy cansistent vvith the zoning. A,pplicant eorr�ctly states that 50%of the lots are smaller than b,600. S ince many of the structur�s were built long befare zoning this is to be expected. It does nat justify granting a vari�ce from the ot�aer 50%of the lats which meet cw�xent zoning standards. ��r-ther, if one eonsiders the size of thE proposed su�Cc�ivided lots, only 23 af the G4 or 35°/Q af the�ots are s�naller. Thus roughly 2/3 of�he�ats in t�e corridor will be larger than the proposec�subdivided lots. t. The situation is even more extreme if analyzed in tern�:s of living u�tits. 9�Catherin.e Street DCWILLIAMS& is cuz-�ently occupied as a�wo family resid.ence. This does not cornply vuith the existing zoning stanc�ards but is presutnably"�-andfathered"in. The applicant is not proposing ta cdnvert tl�e existing structure at 90 Catherine into a singie fa�niiy residence. Thus,tl�e application should be considered not for two singie fa.tnily resid.ences but actually for three residences_ If the proposal is analyzed in this respect, each residence u�ill have a�aout 3,558 square feet ar only 53%of t�e required minimum square footage- a 47%reduction in size. Moreover, only 7 of t�e 64�o� on t�ae Catheri�e Street corridor are smaller and nane are permitted multiple family residences. The praqosed lot size is inconsistent with lot si�es of adjo�ning_properties While applicant at�ea�ap#s to characterize their prflps�sed subdivision as consistent with average iot size in the con-i�dor, the fact is that Catherine St�reet vari� significantly_ Co�sider sotne af the lo�s i�mtuediately surrounding 9Q Catherixte- the lots sizes are as follaws: 89 Catherine -7,500 s�trare feet 91 Catherine- 11,25(� square feet 95 Cathe�ine- 11,254 square feet 9fi Catherine- S,D00 square feet 223 Maple.Avenue- 18,295 sc�uare feet{rec�nxly subdivided intn two �o�s, the smalier bei�ng 6,413 square feet or a 2.8°/a variance from the square footage require�ents.) Mui#i le farrcil residences an this area are not allowec� �vhen varia�ees are�or� ht. The stat�xs of 90 Catherine is inconsistent wi#h the existi.ng zani.ng standards far the area. - ari issue whieh has repeat�cil�been addressed�y this b+�ard Very clearly the city wants siz�gle family�esidences in the area, T}ais was pointed out in two ather submissions made to tkis bQard. For exaxrxple, both 9� Catherine and�l Catherine with approxirrfate�y the same sized Iots� 90 Catherine were two family residences u��il several yeara a�o. Wt3en applica�ions were inade for bu�ldiug pennits and variances far these twa homes tl�e or�ers were informed tha�they were no �ang�r"grandfathez-ed"as two fain.ily residenees and had to be sin�le farnily residences. In the case of 95 Ca�erine,the record is even more extensive. Previ�usly considered two parcels - 95 Catherine and 97 Catherine- �e previous owners made an a}�plication to make 97 Ca�lierine a qi�alified building lot. This board turned dovfm t�e application. Moreover,when a variance was sought for an addi#ion ta 95 Catherine, the city required 95 and 97 Catkzez-ine to�e combir�ed as a condition to grantiung the variance. It shouId also be observed that a recent application for 4U Second Street whic� sough#to have a second dwellzng on the premises in an existuig garage was denied by this board. T1�e factars to be considered whe�an area variance is sov ht, 1. Whether the benefit sought can be achieved iay other feasible means. Tk�e applicant stat�s that there are na other feasi6le rn�ans by which tne�ene�t can be Page 2 of S �CWILLIANiS& achieved further stating that adjacent propertzes are not for sale. Hovvever, counsel fi�r applicant stat�d t�at some discussians hacf occurred between the owner of 96 Cather�e and the applicant. Ifc that property was purchased, 9Q and 96 com�ined couid be subdivided into two it�ts easily coanf�orniing with zoning requirements. Whether this is ecanamica�ly feasibie is beyond the scope of this submission. Applicant cati alsa place an acc�sary st�ructure on the property fully conforming with existi�g zoning standards. While living units are not permitted in accessory struet�u�es, it can be the source of additional income. 2. Wbte�her granting the varianc�vv�ll produce an undesirable change in t�e character of the neighborhood or a detriment to�sarby prflperties. The applicant stat�s that grantiug the wariance will not"alter the cbaracter af the neighborhoo�."noting that other parcels in the"immediate" area do not meet the dimensional requiremenx� of UR-2 zaning. As became evident at the initial hearing on�he appiication, sonne in the neighhorhood f�el differently and no one voiced support for the application_ Ali�he adjacent properties are single farnily residences. As was point�d out above, even properties (e.g. 95 and 91 Cath�rinej whitch i�ad previously been considered two family reside�ces were to�d when apply�ng for Y�ui�ding pernuts that the properties were hencefarth single farnily residences and a certificate ofoccupancy would not be issued for a multiple family reside�cce. Very clearly, mu�tiple far�ily dwellings ar�no �on.ger being permitted in the area. As was discussed above,the majority of the suzrounding pa�rcels do meet ths dunensional requirem�nts for UR 2 zoning and it is debai�able that properties on Catherine a black or more away are"i�nediate". 3_ Whether the variance is substantial. As pointed out above,the variance sought is qt�ite substantial. Rat�ghly 2/3 of t3ie lots on the Cat�erine Street cofridor rrvou�d be larger than the two proposed lots. If#he application is gran�ed allowing the existing b�ilding at 90 Catherine to rernain a�wa fanlily residence t�e resulting square footage per residentiai unit is smaller than roughiy 9Q%of all the�arcels in the Cat�erine Street corridar. By comparison,this baard recently granted a variance for the property directly beh�nd 90 Catherirte at 223 Map1e Avenue pern�itting the creation of a second buildin�;lot of 6,4�3 square feet or 2,8%less than the required mininnu�n Applicant is requesting a much larger a.t�d substantiai variance. Mareover it must be emphasized w�at applicant has requested is a�z area variance. Section 83.1 c�fthe Saratoga Zoning Ordinance defines area va.riance as fallows: 8.3.1 AREA V�RIANCE An area variar�ce provides relief fram the dirn�nsiana3 or p�ysical requ�rements imposed by the applicai�le zoning regulatians. An area variance does not authorize any change i�x the type of use o�#�ie property. 1�`he permitted use of properties in the area�s single family reszder�tial. �y failing ta address the Pag�e 3 of S acwi«iA�st grandfatlzered use af 90 Catherine w�at applicants are requesting is in effect a use variance for the 90 Cathe:rine. That is not allowed by Sectxon 83.1. � F�.uthermore,the city�oning code adtiresses thzs situatian. Saratoga Zonin�Ordinance Secho�S,3 provides as follows: 5.3 NONC4NF(�RMIIVG USES 5.3.1 CONTINLJATTON A iawFi��iy�re-existing,non-confarming use�ay be continued subject to the provisions of t}�is Section. 5.3.2 D�SCONTINUANCE A non-conforn�ing use shall be deemeci diseontinuec�if it is not operated far at least thuty(3(}) days in a ca�e�dar yeat and any fizture use ofthe praperty shali confarm to this Chapter. 5.3.5 CHANGE IN USE �f a nan-conforrrung use is to be replaced or augmented by another use,the new and �.ny fut�u-e use shal�conforni ta this Chapter. �ince the proposed subdivision af the properly"augments"the use af the parce�,the existiug structure at 90 Cathe�-ine must now comply with tbe zc�ning code. 4. Whether t�e variar�ce will have adverse physical or�nvironmental effects on the neighborhoad or district. S�bdividing fihe parce�a#90 Catherine into iwo su�stantiaily suhstandard lots will have an ativerse effect on the neighborhaod. Applicant contends that g�iven the existe�ce o�other su�s#,andard Iots in the area tl�er�vvan't be any adverse effect. This is a bit caunterin#uitive_ If the desired standard i�the zoning ordinance is 6,60t�square feet, it is dif�icult to see haw creating more substandard lots will not have adverse physical or environmental effects. In essence the applicant is arguing tl�at crat�ning more struetures on substandard lots is acceptable because other older lots(who�ave z�at saught a variance) e�st. That in effect renders the zoni�g standa�d useless. 5. Wheir�er th�alle ed c�ifficul was self-created. �,e applicant admits that sh�vvas aware of the restrictions on the�roperty at the time she purchased it. Stunmazy: The applica�ion for a varianGe fails every stan.dard the baard is required to cflnsider and should be de�ied. The application requests a substantial waiver af the�quare foota�e Page 4 of 5 �cwi«�A�s� � requirements. It will ha�e an unciesirahIe effect upon the neigt�borhood. - a fact whi,ch was voiced sever�:f adjaining property owners. E�onarni� feasibility assumes a legal use for the p�operty. The zaning ardinance is very clear. A request for an area variance does not perforce mean that a grandfat�ered. nonconforming use�f the progerty can continue. At the�ery least s�ould th�board decide to petmit thE two substandard Iots, applicant sho�ld be arequired as a eozxdition ta agree to convert the existing structure at 9Q Catherine int+o a s�ngle fa�nily residence cansistent with the zoning standards for the area. Resp�ctfitlly su � �avi C. Williams DCW:dcw C�: Gary and June Vail, Kevi�x McC,ane, Laura Kenyoz�, Saratoga Spring Planning Boara �lease address all correspondence to our new address: DC Will�ar7� and Associates 95 Ca�er�e Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12$b6 (917} 847-2136 Fa�: 914 737-$628 dwilliams@attg�obai.n�t Page 5 of 5