Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20220686 28 North Lane 96 union Area Variance Correspondance FERRADINO ,BUSI lE S"LEGAL STRATEGY FERRAC INO FIRM, PLLC Stephanie W. Ferradino, Esq. * stef@ferradinofirm.com September 26, 2022 Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals Via Hand Delivery and Electronic Attn:Aneisha Samuels Submission City Hall—474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Re: 28 North Lane/96 Union Avenue, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Dear Chairman Simpson and Zoning Board Members: Please be advised that I represent adjacent property owners to the immediate east(100 Union Avenue— Rick Higgins) and west (88 Union Avenue, LLC.) of the property located at 96 Union Avenue and 28 North Lane (hereinafter Property). This letter is in response to the application for a variance for the above- mentioned parcel of land upon which a new structure is being proposed to replace the existing one-story carriage house. While seeking to be supportive of improvements to the neighborhood and on good terms with an adjacent Property owner, my clients have some concerns relating to the proposed structure which is sought to be erected. It may be helpful to provide some background information relating to this Property. Background: In 2018, the subject Property owner sought variances associated with conversion of the Property back into single family residential use, together with approval of a living unit in the carriage house on North Lane. The 2018 variances sought by 96 Union Ave/28 North Lane was in response to the city violations related to the number of residential units in the property,which was not in conformance with the city regulations. The conversion from apartments back to single family use was a welcome change. However, the work on the Property has been painfully slow and impactful on my clients. For example, large mechanical lifts, trucks and other machinery has been stored on, in front of, in the parking place on Union Avenue and behind the property. The ongoing work results in a flow of workers in and around the site, construction noise, debris and general unsightliness of the Property which typically arises during construction. The front and small side lawn has been unkempt, no plantings are present or maintained and the rear yard is filled with sand and mud. The perpetual state of construction has lasted for 4 years so far, and no efforts have been made to conceal the ongoing construction while work has been ongoing in the 63 Putnam Street, Suite 202 Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 (518) 260-1229 www.ferradinofirm.com Page 2 interior, even during the busy tourist season when most Union Avenue homes are carefully kept as an important entrance to the city. One of the owners of 88 Union Avenue purchased 88 Union using the 96 Union Ave/28 North Lane owner as her realtor. Unfortunately, in the fall of 2020, the 96 Union Ave//28 North Lane owner cut down 8 mature hemlock trees located between the two properties, removing the mature vegetated buffer that existed between 88 and 96 Union. The impacts were immediate and irrevocable, as you will see from the pictures appended to this letter. These trees were three to four stories tall and provided a solid wall of green hiding one home from the other.An arborist determined that six of the trees were approximately 100 years old, one was 70 years old and the youngest was 39. Seven (7) of the eight(8)trees were located on my client's 88 Union Avenue property. The removal of the trees disrupted the ecosystem that has existed in that area for decades, resulting in untold changes to the vegetation, insects and animals that resided there. For the owners of 88 Union Avenue, the removal of the trees had a drastic and negative impact on their property. Their home no longer had privacy in the side yard, porch and pool. The ability to use their porch during the summer months changed drastically from an inviting respite in the shade to a sitting area that was too hot most days as the sun light poured in. The upstairs bedrooms now have direct visual sight from the adjacent property's 2nd story windows. The visual buffer from the constant construction noise, debris and unsightliness of 96 Union Avenue no longer exists. The mature trees were irreplaceable and the visual impacts to the 88 Union Avenue property cannot be fixed in this lifetime. Please see the attached photographs depicting the stark change to the properties that resulted from the removal of the mature vegetation. All three properties have existing carriage homes. 100 Union Avenue's carriage home is a two-story structure that has an outdoor 2nd story deck which overlooks the 28 North Lane carriage house. As you can see from the pictures at the end of this letter, mature vegetation provides a visual buffer from the 2nd story deck of 100 Union to the North Lane carriage house. Between the main house at 100 Union and its carriage house is a well-maintained lawn which is used for outdoor entertaining. Similarly, the 88 Union Avenue property owners frequently utilize their side yard which has a pool, shaded portico and other structures for outdoor entertaining, together with their carriage house. Currently, the vegetative buffer provides some privacy from the back portion of the lot, but the aerial images attached demonstrate where the removal of the trees occurred in 2020. Pending Application: My clients are generally supportive of the proposal to upgrade the carriage house, but have some concerns about the specifics of the structure, placement of the carriage house and further damage to the remaining trees and arborvitae which may occur from the construction. In the rear of the Property along North Lane, on either side of the existing carriage house are rows, one on the east and one on the west, of mature vegetation which provides a partial vegetative buffer between the three properties. The vegetation includes decades old arborvitae that is 20-30 feet in height and very mature (perhaps 60+ feet high) maple trees on either side of the subject Property. The vegetation was planted along the property line. As you may be aware, the root structure for mature vegetation mimics the actual tree itself underneath the soil. For maple trees, the spread of the root system can extend several times the branch circumference. In addition, the root structure is close to the surface of the soil, rather than deep where it may not be impacted by excavation. "Maple trees possess wide-spreading roots that can cover an area three times as wide as their branch circumference. A maple that has reached its maximum size can produce roots that extend up to 100 feet(30 meters) from the trunk. Most maple roots are shallow and exist in the top 24 inches (60 cm) of the topsoil." https://peppershomeandgarden.com/maple-tree-root-sys Page 3 If the new carriage house is approved as proposed, the new foundation, even if it is on a slab, will require excavation and cause irreparable damage to the roots of the large trees on either side of the Property. Proposing to bring the carriage house forward from the current location brings that excavation even closer to the larger of the trees. In contrast, utilization of the existing foundation for the carriage house, with careful attention to any impacts to the root structure, will allow the buffer between the properties to remain. Variance Standards: The benefit of a new carriage house can be achieved by other feasible means. The applicant could utilize the existing structure and/or foundation to construct a new or renovated carriage house. This will prevent any damage to the vegetative buffer and significant underground root structure of the trees that border the subject Property. Because the size of the proposed foundation is similar to that of the existing structure, it may be possible to construct or remodel the existing carriage house without damaging the vegetation that is necessary to maintain the privacy between adjacent properties. The use of the existing foundation foot print will also continue the aesthetic look along North Lane, where the carriage houses are oriented in close proximity to the alley. The proposal will produce an undesirable impact on the neighborhood and a detriment to both nearby properties. Had the Property owner not previously removed the mature vegetative buffer on the front 1/2 of the Property, the proposal may have been palatable because perhaps it could have remained hidden. However, shifting the existing structure into the middle of the Property will result in significant additional exposure on both sides of the Property, including loss of more vegetative buffer resulting from the proposed excavation. Having a carriage house closer to my clients' properties and residences is intrusive, especially in light of the recent exposure when the trees were improperly removed. My clients utilize their back yards and pool throughout the good weather months, but no longer have the mature trees to shield their usage from their 96 Union Ave/28 North Lane occupant. Both owners have dining, entertaining and pool usage which would be impacted by removal of the vegetation. In addition, the proposed structure has second story windows oriented toward my clients' residences and a 2nd story porch that overlooks 88 Union Avenue. These features will be invasive and detrimental to both adjacent properties, exacerbating the loss of privacy which resulted when the trees were cut down. In a recent variance request at 132 Fifth Avenue, the property owners sought to add a second story to the ranch house. This board was concerned about the impact to the adjacent property owner, who had a small window and side yard that faced the area of the proposed addition. This board required the second story windows facing her property to be unusable (not see through) in order to protect an adjacent property owner's side yard. Similar concern would be appreciated, as my clients—unlike that adjacent property owner—significantly use the areas the windows would face. The relief requested from the UDO standards is substantial in percentage. If the applicant is simply proposing adding on to the existing carriage house, the foundation would be grandfathered in and the only relief would be for the second story. Because of the orientation of the existing structure, this would be less impactful to the adjacent property owners and would enable the vegetation to remain and provide a buffer. As an aside, the applicant did not actually inquire of either of my clients whether land could be purchased to alleviate the need for the variance. Given the history between the property owners, it would have been appreciated to have had some notification or discussion about the proposal before getting the notice in the mail and seeing the property sign regarding the variance. The proposal will have an adverse physical and environmental impact as a result of the damage to the vegetative buffer and continued disruption to the ecosystem that existed when the mature trees were in place. An arborist who reviewed the site after the trees were cut found that the actions caused damage to Page 4 the ecosystem, including impacts on the soils, vegetation, insects, birds and other small creatures that were part of that environment. Causing more damage to this area will result in further impacts on adjacent property owners, including change in the light and sun exposure to their properties, modification of the perennials that had been planted for shade, the inability to use the porch because of the heat from the (now) direct sun, etc. The alleged difficulty is self-created and unnecessary. The proposal can be achieved in other methods that will not have as drastic effects on the neighbors. The Property owner does not reside in this house. Instead, she seeks to have the approvals for the new carriage house in order to make the property more marketable. It is possible to have a renovated carriage house in the existing location. It is our understanding that these improvements are not for personal use, but instead will be sold once the approvals have been obtained. City Policies: Finally, the new UDO has provisions pertaining to tree preservation, signifying the importance of the mature trees to the city ecosystem. The intent is clearly delineated in this new provision which states "Existing significant trees should be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Where preservation is not feasible, trees that are removed should be replaced on-site with comparative native trees that will provide the same benefit in accordance with this section." UDO, 11.9A. Unfortunately, the mature vegetation that would be impacted by the proposed structure are unable to be replaced with anything remotely similar to what currently exists. Because of this, it is imperative that the buffer remain. We respectfully ask the Board to consider the impacts to these adjacent properties and to include the concerns raised herein when making any determination pertaining to this application. We are happy to participate in the discussion to help ensure that any relief granted will have a nominal impact on my clients' homes. Thank you for your time and attention to this information. Very truly yours, M Stephanie W. Ferradino Page 5 Below are the three properties that are the subject of this letter. Mature growth trees that will be affected by excavation are shown. IL ; J16- , 4 -- r W-IF E A • IFPL r � 1 i! ■ . 06 " 006 it .16 Ir T 0666 AL , i a � 1 m : Page 6 IL to Id .s �_ �y4-1 e� , r_ 4r•� "A IL -fir" 9 F ■ • , A 4 , _ a it dJ ■,• �� 40L elm �� . _ r r M- ° jp ir A I ti p Ll 00 16 ti a :. �. E ��I ®� ■ lp% Page 7 View from 96 Union toward 88 Union where vegetation was removed and house is now clearly visible. Evergreen trees were recently planted to replace the cut down trees. Note condition of the "lawn" at subject Property. This maple depicted is smaller than the one that exists on the property line with the 100 Union Avenue. ar NJ 6� 9 ' 4 . • 1 m" • i �- 1 _ 1 r 1 � r, 1 " 1 F - 1 �t i t w ti i` 4 i* ru � 1 1 Ab �F" ,g ■ 't n {li.. ■ iWM _ 1 ' - , r Page 8 View of 100 Union Avenue lawn looking toward it's carriage house and mature vegetative buffer on the right shielding 28 North Lane carriage house from any view. y e 4 F � sr 3,"e me °m. MrWr jr k I � 6 F. • ti w. j. • .m �1Arr.5SII +t7 P P{ ' n lu F ,Pt" + s�� R I'�•"' t �r)...:�"• �Y y�Vx�;`'. 1ry-/ J 1 IFr'I •. �+�_ J y4- r�r. ' �t ;y� � � tI d°"+� 15 `�'�°y 1'x. � .� !•' I,,r+,F ,y�7f. �1. �F lil F •�•I i�YWf �; " AR90 yd, '.Y. f , Y ' 1 [ + . +�Y 4. Y�1ta d,�f�:r � ,. }. �,4 y' .r7 ,�°I� f - •1, '} � '"5a s �-�, , R`a ;1'�a5�i,�*'yn �„'ry y�� � ., h � ;'!A' �'' 2,•'!•-t, a° @ J i ! �:a,+ ,Yp .:"�����, �'� k r I e, - f "�,�,� A T"Y:, 7+.'� .,,�r..t �= '@ - � , � tip,k# •',�,� ��,�tf,". a�•. t_ yif , -� r .. * S A _i, Ixi, n , • y A'Y}:f pF"9•* r.. ' { x n -��ff1�r :.�* r• 'A'J *z-r. a TL" + a " f .. .1 �ti�M•:"^�"��,�^.�1� � e lk v �. - • � ,.. ''�1�.. - as w x[P ` .'� ,a' -'.� 1. t. s �~ ti` �r ,. 4 4� '^ *rv1 �"`,`i7,K .+,�s; .°, '°tie`r-� L_'"�F/�i{ ",�sf r s..:. ,�nM::.`.`"x �' `� �' ' +'� •.. 74n riL� U� +4 = 3 • 71' f 4- .:L:., - f ,: 1� i- r� • •`.� � 7 �r .y s ,V,-:_�$.. /` r y i., .Y - :�4r a �pa�-•l - � Y �� �a .}���•� a .F,,i Jam.a�. �Yy. 4C, `"TiFJt :7'# •*t.n y� p, r I.P Y _ �. .ra 3' fJlt 3, r oe t~ '<5 {.,1 tAk ,*� of:.A mr"� � -3' `L s +-•e^ - ,, • s ��l 1 ,~•: c• i+ _ X7's �•.• '�,. u .` � gyp: �R' e .,ra. .,%. � •�+ tr a {, .t lk i J• , s a I s a :.-r `�+", i•I I a.�J.. �I r I.I +�'.F• � T��'F"-� .a4 _- -' -. �� d� S ;-r*• � I' :,/i4. �, 1� +if.�f p 2,7 �' 4l3 + Lie y►f h , Y Ik� r ' r ! Page 10 .41 VF m ill - - -ne i monk a m M • PPEI-^ b&Mww r ® %dE& _ ^ill.. ea m. UO an A q • • 1 m m d j L �y� m All so C) ° m• y r` . . r i mmmmIIIIII Page 11 � I!r MMI CD ! yg ...A� •.i - 1 ! -1Lin • IL po �% 96 it 16 J _ � h g . z • s P . 00 i CIA " • _ ®da A u -&mr, � e r ! r $' W ®A L � r ..^^ d 13 A �L •�7 10 - a AU1, - �1 A.. LO r A E " " a -o1' d 1 + r % • p e � 9 1 d� r�• i- " • .. IN IN e _ ■°1 IN ' o Air I ® 7'7 • _ P •• i .' .. I M6, : J6 NO F '�_ r IN e iy r • ,� r• 1 1 L f • L,^•. 4 A� IP■• 1 i' ,mr PLL ® r . -�