Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210696 85 Nelson Use Variance NOD P�oc s CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Gage Simpson, Chair Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair Y ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Emily Bergmann Justin Farrington CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY Cheryl Grey SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866 Matthew Gutch c°RPORnr�o '9 518-587-3550 John Daley, Alternate WWW.SARATOGA-SPRI N GS.ORG Alice Smith, Alternate #20210696 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Theodore J. Waite, III 85 Nelson Avenue Saratoga Springs,NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 85 Nelson Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 179.21-2-19 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 three-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 23rd day of August 2021 through the 6h day of June 2022. In consideration of the need to demonstrate unnecessary hardship, I move that a use variance to permit a three-family residence in the UR-2 District, as per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions,be denied for the following reasons: Background This property is shown on the Saratoga County assessment website as a three family-however the Board notes that assessment records represent Land use and is often not reflective of zoning. The property has been consistently zoned as single family prior to and since purchase of the home in 2013. There are no city records of this property obtaining a use variance,nor is there evidence of continuous pre-existing non-conforming three-family use. City records associated with improvements made on this home show this as a single family home in 2001. Renovations occurred in 2001 with copies of the complete floor plans on file with the Building Department. In 2002 an addition was placed on the home with garage and space above. It was still shown on the City records to be a single family home at that time. The next project took the existing garage or barn on the property and connected it to a new barn,with discussion concerning finished space in that existing barn with an exclusive entrance. An application was made to ZBA for a temporary accessory dwelling which was denied. During the permitting process it was noted in City records that this was a single family dwelling. No kitchens were allowed in either of the spaces above the garage or when the barn garage was converted to living space. There is no support in the records that exist that the house was permitted to be used as a multi- family dwelling during the 2001-2003 period. The tax assessment was changed in 2003 to a three family with a note on the assessment file that states this appears to be used as a three family. The Board in the upcoming paragraphs will evaluate the use variance criteria and the merits or demerits of the information provided by the applicant as appropriate. 1. The Applicant has not demonstrated that he cannot realize a reasonable financial return on his initial investment for any permitted use on the property. The Applicant stated he purchased the property for $801,500 in a private sale in 2013. He has shown that the property generated a rental income of $821,501 from 2013 to 2021, with total expenses of $729,210, leaving a profit of $92,291. These figures provided by the Applicant illustrate that the Applicant has already realized a financial return on the property since taking ownership. The Applicant also states the city assessed value of the property is $413,000 and an estimated market value of $666,000. However, no effort has been made to sell the property as a single- family home. Furthermore, the Applicant has provided an estimated value of the home if sold as a single-family to be approximately $1,118,975 compared to $657,300 if the home was sold as- is. With an estimated conversion cost of$250,000 as per the estimate provided by the Applicant in the letter dated December 22, 2021. In a subsequent letter dated March 04, 2022, the applicant provided a new more detailed estimated conversion cost of $455,621.92. Using the second conversion cost estimate the, converting the home to a single family would result in a loss. However the board notes that the applicant has not made any attempts to use the home in any of the permitted used for the Urban Residential-2 District.Also the drastic change in estimated costs provided by the applicant is questionable. In light of these estimated values provided by the Applicant, if the home was converted to a single-family using the first estimate and sold, the Applicant stands to make a profit of at least $159,766, more if consideration is to made of the $476,028 already paid in mortgage (principal and interest). The Board considers that return on investment adequate for the 9-year duration of homeownership from 2013 to 2021. With the figures provided by the Applicant, the Applicant has failed to prove the lack of financial return and has instead proven they have already realized reasonable financial return, even if the home is to be converted and sold as a single-family home. The applicant has not exhausted the uses that are permitted in the district. Based on the income from rental,the value of the home the applicant has already realized a financial return. The Applicant has not provided any quantifiable rationale to prove the infeasibility of using the home for any other permitted use within the Urban Residential -2 (UR-2) District. These uses include but are not limited to bed-and-breakfast, rooming house, Senior Housing, and or senior assisted care facility. The Applicant has merely stated the assumption that the same conversion costs would apply in order to use the home as any of the permitted uses. The Board disagrees with that statement and finds these other uses feasible without significant conversion costs, as most of these uses would be supported by the current layout and configuration of the home. After multiple requests by the Board, the Applicant has still not provided financial evidence to support the assertion that the other permitted uses would not yield a reasonable financial return. Furthermore,while placing the property for sale is not required to establish the Applicant's argument, the fact that it has not been placed for sale with the permitted uses results in less evidence being available to establish the lack of potential financial return than if an attempt had been made to sell the property. Based on the above, the Board concludes that based on the information provided by the applicant a reasonable financial return has already been realized and could further be realized if the home is reverted to a single family structure or if the home was used in one of the permitted uses within the urban residential 2 District. 2. 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 and single-family homes in the area. The house's layout and the location of certain features such as the air conditioners for each of the three apartments that have been set up, are somewhat unique in nature, though it is not clear that they create a unique hardship. The applicant has not demonstrated that the hardship is distinctive to only this property. 3. The applicant has not demonstrated that the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, however the impact may not be substantial in its extent. The Board notes public comments were received regarding this application that were unfavorable to the applicant's request for a use variance. Issues cited in the comments included the density of the use, parking demands created by the added residential units, the fact that the three-family status would run with the parcel, and the precedent to be created. While the Board does not view public comments as the sole source of information on adverse impact to neighborhood character, the Board does have concerns over the expansion of use to three-family given the proximity of the neighboring one-family properties and the sufficiency of off-street parking. The Board finds this variance, if granted, would have some adverse impact on neighborhood character; however, given the location proximate and across from the race track, the impact would be somewhat mitigated given the high level of activity in that neighborhood during racing season. 4. The Board finds that 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 three-family was not permitted at the time of purchase. The applicant has stated this was a private sale and that he did not use a real estate attorney. The applicant notes that he relied on tax bills, which indicated that this was a multi-family property. He further notes that he has found a record from the time before the purchase indicating the property to be a"2-3 family year-round residence," and that he has no other documentary evidence to support the assertion that this was a multi-family residence. The Board notes that during the time of purchase, the applicant worked in the field of banking and mortgage lending and used a bank attorney. The Board notes that a reasonable level of due diligence consulting city records prior to purchase would have provided the information on the zoning status of this property, and therefore finds that this hardship is self-created. In May 2010, the property was listed on Zillow for sale as a unique single family home,listing was later removed and then relisted at a reduced cost and sold a few years later. The Board notes that the information provided on Zillow may have been provided by a third party, the homeowner or public records. The applicant has highlighted some ostensible similarities between this application and the Rosemarie Guanill use variance application previously approved in 2021. Key differences between these two applications are that in the case on Guanill,the City including zoning/building staff was under the impression that the property was a lawful two family by way of being preexisting non-conforming lawful two family residence.A simple record query from the building department would not have provided any alternate answers.It was only determined after extensive building files research that the property would need a use variance to continue being operated as a two family residence. The owners received several building permits from the building department from 1974 to 2012. Also, in the case of the Guanill application all city records supported the two family use, as opposed to the case of 85 nelson where all Building records illustrated the property as a lawful single family residence and not a three family residence. The Guanill Residence has also been an existing two family residence for over 45 years. The changes that happened at 85 nelson,happened without a building permit within the last two decades. Conclusion: The Board notes the requirement for all four of the use variance criteria outlined above must be met, for a use variance to be granted. The Board finds that not all of these requirements have been met. The application is therefore denied. It is so moved. Dated: June 06, 2022 Adopted by the following vote: AYES: 6 (G. Simpson, C. Grey,E.Bergmann,J.Farrington,J.Daley, A. Smith) NAYES: 0 Dated: June 06,2022 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,seven members of the Board being present. s SIGNATURE: 06/07/2022 HAI DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.