HomeMy WebLinkAbout20220202 31-33 Marion Ave Area Variance- Stewarts Revised Determination- September 12 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning KCOGAN
c,P S,p Zoning&Building Inspector
0
�! BUILDING DEPARTMENT Extension 2I91
.J
F z CITY HALL DUANE MILLER
u - Assistant Building Inspector
474 Broadway, Suite 32 Extension 2512
,h Saratoga Springs'NY 12866
�RPORATED`9 JEANNA FRITZ-THOMAS
Assistant Building Inspector
• BUILDING & PLUMBING Telephone (518)587-3550 Ext. 2511 Extension2541
• CODE COMPLIANCE www.saratoga-springs.org ROBERTKOCIS
• ZONING Assistant Building Inspector
Extension 2542
JOHN BARNEY
Assistant Building&Construction Inspector
Extension 2521
September 12, 2022 RICHARD TIERSCH
Assistant Building&Construction Inspector
Extension 2563
Zoning Board of Appeals
Application#20220202, 20220661
31 —33 Marion Avenue—Stewart's Shops
Parcels#: 166.5-4-1.1, 166.5-4-1.2, 166.5-4-1.3
RE: City Zoning Ordinance §240-1.7(D),Addendum to May 16, 2022 Determination
Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals,
Please allow me to provide clarification on the determination letter I provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals
dated May 16, 2022. The applicant has provided information in response by way of a letter dated July 6,2022
from the law offices of M. Elizabeth Coreno, Esq. P.C. I ask that you reference my letter of May 16, 2022 as
contained in the record for application#20220202("Determination Letter") and Ms. Coreno's letter of July 6,
2022 as contained in the record for application#20220661 ("Applicant's Response") so I can avoid restating
the contents in their entirety.
There appears to be no discrepancy between the Determination Letter and the Applicant's Response as it
concerns the tax parcels in question,the project in question,the text of Zoning Ordinance §240-1.7, or the two
main subjects of the determination. As such, I will not restate the information here.
The first main subject of the determination,regarding whether uncertainty as to the exact location of the
district boundary must exist in order to utilize Section 1.7(D) does not appear to be contested by the
Applicant. In fact,the Applicant's Response provides a well-reasoned argument in support of the position
stated in the Determination Letter. I therefore reaffirm my determination that the Applicant is not required to
establish uncertainty as to the location of the boundary between districts in order to request utilization of the
provisions of Section 1.7(D).
The second main subject of the determination involves whether the Applicant can construe the requirements
of the TRB district 100 feet to the north of the district boundary, as established between parcel# 166.5-4-1.1
and parcel# 166.5-4-1.3,thus allowing the project to utilize the southernmost 100' portion of parcel# 166.5-
4-1.1 in the proposed conunercial endeavor. I stand by my research and conclusion that it was never the
intent of this clause to allow the 100 foot move as proposed in the given circumstances. However, after
careful consideration of the information and arguments provided in the Applicant's Response, and in
consultation with legal counsel,I must concede that my previous position is not adequately defensible.
The Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga Springs is incorporated by reference in the Local Law enacting the
Zoning Ordinance. I cannot dispute that the enactment of the Local Law in 2012 repealed and replaced any
Page 1 1
prior Zoning Ordinance, including prior iterations of the Zoning Map. I would therefore find it very difficult
to interpret that the clause"as existing at the time of this enactment"means anything other than October 4,
2012. As stated in the Applicant's Response,I do not dispute that Stewart's owned the land in question in
single ownership prior to October 4, 2012 and thereafter.
The Applicant's Response has successfully nullified any argument I would make as to what Section 1.7(D)
should mean or what the language should be to reflect the intent. The response correctly pointed out that this
particular clause was altered in the Unified Development Ordinance to better reflect the intent. While I view
this as a clarification,there is no denying that the language is materially different. As the person who
suggested the changes,it would be disingenuous for me to argue that both clauses had the same meaning.
For the record,I would like to state that one of the examples of"Precedential Use of 100 Feet"is incorrect.
Example (a)refers to Smith Cassier Estate Holdings divided by the T-4 and T-5 district lines. It was my
research which confirmed that the lands in question were entirely within the T-4 zoning district after being
reverted from a PUD, so no 100 foot move was necessary, and no precedent established. This was
documented in a zoning determination dated October 3, 2018.
My determination from the May 16,2022 letter read as follows:
"For the reasons stated herein,it is my determination that it would be inconsistent with the language and
intent of the Zoning Ordinance to allow Stewart's Shops to extend the requirements of the TRB district 100
feet to the north into parcel 166.5-4-1.1,which is wholly within the UR-2 district."
Based on careful consideration of the information and arguments provided by the Applicant,I must reverse
my prior determination. It is my revised determination that the district requirements of the TRB zoning
district may be construed to extend 100 feet north into parcel 166.5-4-1.1 as proposed by the property owner,
and the resulting 100 foot section of the lot would be afforded the rights and bound by the requirements of the
TRB district.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Respectfully,
Patrick D. Cogan
Zoning and Building Inspector
Page 1 2