HomeMy WebLinkAbout20221001 223 Maple Area Variance Subdivision Application ENGINEERING AMERICA CO .
76 WASHINGTON S T . SARATOGA SPRINGS , NY 1 2 8 6 6
5 1 8 / 5 8 7 - 1 3 4 0 5 1 8 / 5 8 0 - 9 7 8 3 ( F A X )
TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: FROM:
Zoning Board of Appeals Tonya Yasenchak
COMPANY DATE:
City of Saratoga Springs OCTOBER 21,2022
FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO.OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER:
1 ZBA Application&$450 application fee
PHONE NUMBER: SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER:
RE: YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER:
Bishop: 2 lot Subdivision
#223 Maple Ave.
❑ URGENT Q FOR REVIEW ❑ PLEASE COMMENT ❑ PLEASE REPLY ❑ AS REQUESTED
Dear Zoning Board of Appeals,
Engineering America Co. respectfully submits the attached ZBA application for review of
area variances related to a proposed (2) lot subdivision at #223 Maple Ave. This project
was approved by the ZBA September 2019 and is being re-submitted as approvals expired.
We respectfully request to be placed on the November 28`"agenda.
We thank you for your time and consideration.
Please contact my office with any questions or if additional information is required.
Thank you for your time and cooperation.
Tonya Yasenchak,PE
Enc.
**HANDWRITTEN APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED** FOR OFFICE USE
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS (Application#)
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1,J u CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY (Date received)
v .w SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866-2296
TEL: 518-587-3550 X2533
•/�C�RPORATF:D �9\� www.saratoga-springs.org
(Project Title)
APPLICATION FOR:
INTERPRETATION, USE VARIANCE, Check if PH Required
AREA VARIANCE AND/OR VARIANCE EXTENSION Staff Review
APPLICANT(S)* OWNERS) (If not applicant) ATTORNEY/AGENT
Name Todd Bishop&Linda Martelli Bishop (same) Agent: Engineering America Co.
223 Maple Ave. 76 Washington St.
Address
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
Phone 518/424-71 58 / / 518/587-1340 /
Email todd@bassociates.com tonyay@nycap.rr.com
Primary Contact Person: Applicant Flowner ✓Attorney/Agent
An applicant must be the property owner, lessee, or one with an option to lease or purchase the property in question.
Applicant's interest in the premises: 12 Owner ❑ Lessee ❑ Under option to lease or purchase
PROPERTY INFORMATION
223 Maple Ave. 166 29 1 63
1. Property Address/Location: Tax Parcel No.: - -
(for example: /65.52—4—37)
December 2014 UR-2
2. Date acquired by current owner: 3.Zoning District when purchased:
Single Family Residence UR-2
4. Present use of property: 5.Current Zoning District:
6. Has a previous ZBA application/appeal been filed for this property?
0 Yes(when? Sept gnl a For what? )
0 No Lot Area&Width
7. Is property located within(check all that apply)?: ❑ Historic District ❑Architectural Review District
® 500'of a State Park,city boundary,or county/state highway?
8. Brief description of proposed action:
Subdivision of existing 18,813 sq.ft. lot into(2)residential parcels.
Lot#1 includes the existing residence in conformance with the City Zoning Requirements having a lot area of 12,400 sq.ft.and
a lot width of 100'/
Lot#2 is proposed as a new residential lot and requires an area variance for lot width and lot area.
Both variances were approved by the City ZBA on Sept.17,2019 after a Neg.SEQRA determination by the Planning Board
9. Is there'an active v✓ritte,)violation for this parcel? ❑Yes 19 No
10. Has the work,use or occupancy to which this appeal relates already begun? ❑Yes e No
11. Identify the type of appeal you are requesting(checlt all that apply):
❑ INTERPRETATION (p. 2) ❑VARIANCE EXTENSION(p. 2) ❑ USE VARIANCE(pp.3-6) 2 AREA VARIANCE(pp. 6-7)
Revised 01/2021
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALSAPPLICATION FORM PAGE 6
AREA VARIANCE—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary):
Article 3:Table 3A-Dim Stand.
The applicant requests relief from the following Zoning Ordinance article(s)
Dimensional Requirements District Requirement Requested
Minimum Lot Size: Square Feet 6,600 sq.ft. 6,413 sq.ft.
(187 sq.ft.difference=2.8%variance relief)
Minimum Average Lot Width 60.0' 50.0'
(10'difference= 16.7%variance relief)
Other:
To grant an area variance,the ZBA must balance the benefits to the applicant and the health,safety,and welfare of the neighborhood and
community,taking into consideration the following:
I. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other feasible means. Identify what alternatives to the variance have
been explored (alternative designs,attempts to purchase land,etc.)and why they are not feasible.
The benefit sought by the applicant is to subdivide the existing parcel and create a new residential building lot. There are other
feasible means to achieve a parcel that meets the required lot area. However. in an effort to create a lot that is square and
consistent with other nearby city lots,the following alternatives are not within best planning practices:
a)The proposed new lot#2 may be widened by 1'to add another 130 sq.ft.to the lot area. However,that would leave the existing
of at 8.1 rom the Southern property line 8.0'min. required which may create future repair update limitations.
adjacent property to the West.This conformity to existing lot lines facilitates parcel ownership&maintenance. The propsed new
bt 99 could poss'bly'�og"in the Sai ith West back corner of thp prnperty to allow for extra sqi lare foot area to gain the addition
187 sq.ft.needed for compliance. However,a"jog"does not fall within standard planning practices to create square city lots. Odd
shaped lots are discouraged by the UDO and of create future maintenance and neighbor issues.
c)There are no additional lands available along the Eastern side of the existing house to allow for the new lot#2 to be widened.
2. Whether granting the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby
properties. Granting the variance will not create a detriment to nearby properties or an undesirable change in the neighborhood
character for the following reasons:
Granting the variances should not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby
properties:
a)The proposed new Lot#2 at 50'width and 6,413 sq.ft.is consistent with other neighborhood lots. A study was prepared which
researched 47 parcels within 350'of the project site(see attached colored map_. Three(3 of 47)lots did not meet the min.
required lot width but met other area requirements(6%). Then(10 of 47)lots met the lot width req. but did not meet the min. lot
area requirement(21%). Twenty(20 of 47)lots did not meet either the.min. lot width or lot area(57%). In total,84%of nearby _
lots were non-comp pliant witFT stancTar s. Only 8 lots o within of the project site fully met the UR-2 of area regs.
b)The building envelope is 30'wide, offering sufficient width and size to allow f6r a single 1=11y residence to be constructed
without further variances.
Revised 01/2021
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS APPLICATION FORN PAGE 7
3. Whether the variance is substantial. The requested variance is not substantial for the following reasons:
The variances requested are not substantial:
a)Lot Width Variance: A 10'variance for min. lot width is being requested (50'vs.60')which results in a 16.7%variance relief.
-This variance is not substantial as it still allows for a 30'wide building envelope which is sufficient for a standard city lot
residential structure including a driveway.
A study was prepaFed whieh Feviewed 4:7 lets within 369'of the pFejeet site.Twenty(20 ef 47)lets FeSeaFehed .,ad let widths at
50'or less. The lot variance requested is under 20%and is consistent with 42.5%of nearby lots.
b)Lot Area Variance: A 187 sq.ft.variance for min. lot area is being requested(6,413 vs 6,600 sq.ft.).which results in a 2.8%
variance relief.This variance is very small in comparison with the overall lot size.
A study was prepared which reviewed 47 lats within 350'ef the projeet site. Twenty Seven lots(27 of 47—57%)have
non-conformin lot areas under 6,600 sq.ft. The new lot#2 is proposed to have a lot area of 6,413 which is more than 57%of
nearby lots.
4. Whether the variance will have adverse physical or environmental effects on neighborhood or district. The requested variance will not
have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district for the following reasons:
The variances should not have any adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood or district:
a)The lot width or area should effect good site construction practices to limit erosion and runoff.
b)Lot development will be consistent with Planning Board requirements for a subdivision which include street lights,trees and
sidewalks, enhaigeing the i9eighberheed.
c)Development on this site and compliant placement of a residential structure should not increase the amount or rate of storm
water runoff from the site.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created(although this does not necessarily preclude the granting of an area variance).Explain
whether the alleged difficulty was or was not self-created:
The alleged difficulty is self-created as it is the Owners'desire to subdivide the property for future development of a smaller home
for income and future downsizing. However, research of nearby lots has proven that 84.3%of properties within this neighborhood
are non-compliant with the UR-2 zoning; smaller neighborhood lots and lot widths have existed since the early 1900's. The
proposed new lot#2 is more consistent with the actual neighborhood than the UR-2 UDO standards.
Revised 01/2021
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE B
DISCLOSURE
Does any City officer,employee,or family member thereof have a financial interest(as defined by General Municipal Law Section 809)in
this application? 0 No Yes If"yes",a statement disclosing the name,residence and nature and extent of this interest must be filed
with this application.
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
Vvve,the property owner(s),or purchasers)/lessee(s)under contract,of the land in question, hereby request an appearance before
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
By the signature(s)attached hereto, I/we certify that the information provided within this application and accompanying
documentation is,to the best of my/our knowledge,true and accurate. I/we further understand that intentionally providing false or
misleading information is grounds for immediate denial of this application.
Furthermore, I/we hereby authorize the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals and designated City staff to enter the property
associated with this application for purposes of conducting any necessary site inspections relating to this appeal.
Date: o
( plicant signature)
Date: /O Z/— Zd z.z—
ap ica t signature)
If applicant is not the currently the owner of the property,the current owner must also sign.
Owner Signature: Date:
Owner Signature: Date:
Revised 01/2021
2021 LAND USE BOARD FEE WORKSHEET
OPED Fees Type 2021 Fee
ApplicationtoZoningBoardofAppeals[1][2] TOTAL #VARIANCE
Use Variance $1100+$50/app
AreaVariance-Residential 450 j $275/var+$50/app+$125 each add'I variance
AreaVariance-Multi-Family,Comm,Mixed-Use $660/var+$50/app+$200 each add'I variance
Interpretations $550+$50/app
Post-Work Application Fee Add 50%App fee+$50/app
Variance extensions 50%ofAppfee+$50/app
Application to Design Review Commission[1] TOTAL #STRUCTURE
Demolition $385
Residential Structures
Principal $55
Accessory $55
Extension $35
Modification $55
Multi-Family,Comm,Mixed-Use Structures
Sketch $165
Principal $550
Extension $200
Modification $330
Multi-Family,Comm,Mixed-Use Accessory,Signs,Awnings
Principal $140
Extension $75
Modification $140
Post-Work Application Fee Add 50%App fee
Application to Planning Board[1] TOTAL #STRUCTURE
Special Use Permit[2] $990+$50/app
Special UsePermit-extension $330
Special UsePermit-modification[2] $450+$50/app
Site Plan Review-incl.PUD:
Sketch Plan $330
Residential $330+$200/unit
Residential-extension $200
Residential-modification $400
Non-residential $660+$130/1000sf
Non-Residential-extension $300
Non-Residential-modification $650
Subdivision-incl.PUD: TOTAL #LOTS
Sketch Plan $330
Preliminary Approval[2]
Residential:1-5 lots $660+$50/app
Residential:6-10 lots $990+$50/app
Residential:11-20 lots $1320+$50/app
Residential:21+lots $1650+50/app
Residential-extension $330
Final Approval[2]
Residential $1320+$175/lot+$50/app
Non-Residential $2000/lot+$50/app
Final Approval Modification[2]
Residential $330+$50/app
Non-Residential $550+$50/app
Final Approval Extension
Residential $135
Non-Residential $330
Other: TOTAL #LOT/ACRE
Post-Work Application Fee Add 50%App fee
Lot Line Adjustment $350
Letter of Credit-modification or extension $440
Letter of Credit-collection up to 1%ofLoC
Recreation Fee $2000/lot or unit
Land Disturbance $660+$55/acre
SEQRA EIS Review(Draft&Final) TBD
Legal Noticing if PB requires Public Hearing $50/app
(1] Fees are based on per structure,except where noted. $450.00 TOTALDUE
[2] Legal ad required;includes City processi ng and publishing
For Administrative Use
Total Paid at Intake
Revised Fee
Balance Due
��_Balance Paid Staff approval
Keith Kaplan, Chair
OG,4 s CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair
1 f> ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Cheryl Grey
o ra, f Christopher Mills
CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY Suzanne Morris
E Gage Simpson
J ,awe SARATOGA SPRINGS,NEW YORK 12866
PH)518-587-3550 Fx)518-580-9480 Chris Hemstead,alternate
WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG Kathleen O'Connor,alternate
GRATED
#20190225
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
Todd Bishop and Linda Martelli-Bishop
223 Maple Ave
Saratoga Springs NY 12866
from the determination of the Building Inspector involving a parcel at 223 Maple Avenue in the City of Saratoga
Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.29-1-363, in an Urban Residential-2 district on the
Assessment Map of said City.
The appellants having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit a
subdivision to create two parcels, in which the currently existing improvements on the property are sited on"Lot
1" consisting of 12,400 square feet fronted by both Green St and Maple Ave, and with a new"Lot 2" fronted by
Maple Avenue consisting of 6,413 square feet, and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said
application held on the 12th day of August and the 16th day of September 2019.
In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicants with detriment to the health, safety and welfare
of the community, I move that the following area variances for the following amount of relief:
TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED
REQUIREMENT
MINIMUM LOT SIZE: LOT 2 6600 SQ FT 64 13 SQ FT 187 SQ FT OR
2.8%
MINIMUM AVERAGE LOT 60' 50, 10' OR 16.7%
WIDTH: LOT 2
As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions,be approved for the following reasons:
1. The applicants have demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the
applicant. The applicant notes that there are no available lands to purchase on the eastern side of Lot 2,
and even a 1 foot addition to the western lot line bordering Lot 1 would come 0.F to the allowed setback
from the house on Lot 1, risking future complications with repairs or updates to that home. The applicant
further notes that a squared-off line on Lot 2, as in the proposed plan, is ideal from planning practices and
precludes future maintenance and neighbor issues.
2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in
neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicants note that the proposed new
boundary and lot configuration will provide sufficient space for a zoning-compliant home on Lot 2. The
Board notes no variances are required for Lot 1.
The applicants further provided the Board with information on comparable lots in the neighborhood,
making it clear that this new Lot 2 would be consistent with neighborhood context. While the Board is
generally not in favor of creating non-compliant sized new lots,the shortfall in total lot size in this case is
not significant; see note 3,below.
3. The Board notes that neither the lot size nor lot width variances are substantial.
4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or
district. Permeability of Lot 1 will be 58.5%per the applicant, well in excess of the UR-2 requirement of
25%.
5. These areas of relief are self-created insofar as the applicants desire to subdivide this parcel, but that by
itself is not fatal to the application.
Notes:
1. City Planning Board approval needed for subdivision
2. This subdivision will nullify a Special Use Permit granted in 1992 for a home occupation on this site.
3. County Planning Board granted a favorable opinion on March 29,2019.
Condition:
1. Removal of existing driveway and curb cut on Maple Ave, and repair to city standards with new
sidewalk and curbing.
Adopted by the following vote:
AYES: 7 (K. Kaplan, C. Grey, C. Mills,G. Simpson, S. Morris, B. Gallagher,K. O'Connor)
NAYES: 0
Dated: September 16, 2019
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, five members of the Board being present.
SIGNATURE: _ 09/17/2019
CHAIR DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT.
0(,' CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
MARK TORPEY, Chair
r' PLANNING BOARD SARABOIVIN, Vice Chair
TODD FABOZZI
City Hall -474 Broadway RUTH HORTON
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 LE TIBUS
KERR AYO
Y M
AYO
Tel:518-587-3550 fax: 518-580-9480
% JASON DOTY
�a www.saratoga-springs.org
SHAWNA JENKS,Alternate
CHRIS PIPIA,Alternate
NOTICE OF DECISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE FINAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
#20210291
BISHOP SUBDIVISION
233 MAPLE AVENUE
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866
Involving the premises with Tax Parcel I D#166.29-1-63, in the City of Saratoga Springs, on an application
for a two-lot residential subdivision within the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District with the Planning Board
who met on May 6, 2021 and made the following decision(s) by a 6-0 vote (In favor: Torpey, Boivin,
Fabozzi, Horton, Bonitatibus, Doty).
In accordance with SEQRA regulations 6NYCRR Part 617 and after review and evaluation of the SEQRA short
Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II, made a motion to issue a Negative SEQRA Declaration on July
1 1, 2019.
And, in accordance with requirements set forth in the City's Subdivision Regulations, the Planning Board
issued the following decision:
0 Approve the final subdivision plat with the following conditions:
• Existing street tree along Maple Ave. to be removed for new driveway. A new (replacement)street
tree shall be installed within the ROW at the intersection of Maple Ave. and Green St., species and
location to be determined by the City Arborist.
• Final plans shall be to the satisfaction of DPW.
The applicant is required to complete the following as perthe City of Saratoga Springs Subdivision Regulations:
• Deliver a letter of credit or cash escrow as a performance guarantee to the City for required on-and
off-site improvements.
• Submit a fee in lieu of recreation of $2,000 for each new residential lot per Appendix A of the
Subdivision Regulations.
• Submit two (2) mylar and two (2) paper copies of the final approved subdivision plat for signature by
the Planning Board Chair.
• File the signed final subdivision plat with the Saratoga County Clerk within sixty-two (62) days as
provided in Article 3, Section 32 of General City Law.
This approval shall expire if not enacted within 180 days as set forth in the City of Saratoga Springs
Subdivision Regulations Article 11, Section I. D.15.
May 13, 2021
Date filed with Accounts Dept. Chair
cc: Building Dept.,Accounts Dept.,Applicant/Agent,File
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part I -Project Information
Instructions for Completing
Part 1—Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the
application for approval or funding,are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on
information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as
thoroughly as possible based on current information.
Complete all items in Part 1.You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the
lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item.
Part 1 —Project and Sponsor Information
Name of Action or Project:
Bishop-Two(2)Lot subdivision
Project Location(describe,and attach a location map):
#223 Maple Ave.;North East corner of Maple Ave.&Green St.intersection
Brief Description of Proposed Action:
Subdivision of existing 18,183 sq.ft.(0.432 acre)lot into two(2)residential parcels.
Lot#1 includes the existing residence in conformance with zoning requirements having a lot of 12,400 sq.ft.(0.285 acre)and lot width of 100'.
Lot#2 is proposed as a residential lot with an area of 6,413 sq.ft.and lot width of 50'.
Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone:p 518/424-7158
Todd Bishop&Linda Martelli Bishop E-Mail:
todd@tbassociates.com
Address:
223 Maple Ave.,
City/PO: State: Zip Code:
Saratoga Springs NY 12866
1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law, ordinance, NO YES
administrative rule,or regulation?
If Yes,attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that ❑✓ ❑
may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no,continue to question 2.
2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other government Agency? NO YES
If Yes, list agency(s)name and permit or approval: ❑ ❑✓
3. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? 0.432 acres
b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? 0.147 acres
c. Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 0.432 acres
4. Check all land uses that occur on, are adjoining or near the proposed action:
5. ❑ Urban ❑ Rural(non-agriculture) ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial m Residential (suburban)
❑ Forest ❑ Agriculture Aquatic ❑ Other(Specify):
❑ Parkland
Page 1 of 3
5. Is the proposed action, NO YES F
a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations? ❑✓ ❑
b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? ❑ ❑✓ ❑
NO YES
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape?
❑ ❑✓
7. Is the site of the proposed action located in, or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES
If Yes, identify: ❑
NO YES
8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? ✓❑ ❑
b. Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? ❑
c. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed ❑ ✓❑
action?
9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES
If the proposed action will exceed requirements, describe design features and technologies:
The new residence will be required to meet the current Energy Conservation Code of NYS. Most probably the design professional will Elverify compliance via a RES Check Energy Analysis to be filed with the Building Dept.at time of permit submission.
10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES
If No,describe method for providing potable water:
11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES
If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment:
12. a. Does the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building, archaeological site,or district NO YES
which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places,or that has been determined by the ❑
Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the
State Register of Historic Places?
b. Is the project site,or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for ❑ ❑✓
archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)archaeological site inventory?
13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES
wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency? ❑✓ ❑
b. Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into, any existing wetland or waterbody? ❑ ❑
If Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres:
Page 2 of 3
14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be found on the project site.Check all that apply:
❑Shoreline ❑ Forest ❑Agricultural/grasslands ❑ Early mid-successional
❑Wetland ❑ Urban ❑ Suburban
15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal, or associated habitats, listed by the State or NO YES
Federal government as threatened or endangered? ✓❑ ❑
16. Is the project site located in the 100-year flood plan? NO YES
❑✓ ❑
17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? NO YES
If Yes, ❑✓ ❑
a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? ❑✓ IT
b. Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems(runoff and storm drains)? ❑✓ ❑
If Yes,briefly describe:
18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the impoundment of water NO YES
or other liquids(e.g.,retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)?
If Yes,explain the purpose and size of the impoundment: ❑ ❑
19. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste NO YES
management facility?
If Yes,describe: Z ❑
20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO YES
completed) for hazardous waste?
If Yes,describe: ❑
This has been checked"yes"by the EAF mapper. Further investigation has shown that this particular site and the adjoining sites have
NOT been subject to remediation. The EAF mapper is referring to current remediation across Rte 9&Rte 50 nearby.
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWLEDGE
Applicant/sponsor/name: Tonya Yasenchak, PE Date: 10/21/22
Signature: Title: Project Engineer&Representative
PRINT FORMMMMMMMMM� Page 3 of 3
EAF Mapper Summary Report Friday, October 21, 2022 1:48 PM
Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist
/ � 166.29'r1-q 4 project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental
165�36=2-73 1.66.2 9-1-53 29-1�t,1 }' assessment form(EAF).Not all questions asked in the EAF are
/166.
� answered by the EAF Mapper.Additional information on any EAF
165,36 2-76 166:29-1-5216629-1-5Q 166 29�-1 24 question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although
f 166..2 -1-49 the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to
r 11.`' 166.29-1 25 DEC,you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order
166.29-1-i 7.2 �166 299-148 � to obtain data not provided by the Mapper.Digital data is not a
165.36-2-68 substitute for agency determinations.
1.66.29-1-45 s 166.29-1 64
6.29 1-47.1 f � - --
1.65.36-2-2'4
`�166.29-1 27.1 f Ortt�+vaNtaftreal
166.2.9-1-�3C166.29-1-4
fl 166.29-1\32--" T4rsxtld _�, I r;
65.36 2-69
ti Xsr_is ? 13U Rio .9Rochdster
1.65.36-2=24 v
� A66.
JII t � , _-165.36 22 25r Paton
1-67�4k I iprovidence
166.29-1-6p1'66:29-1-66 - lewelmd
w1'65.36-2=26 166.29-1-41
Cm 165.362-27 t _nii.:;l i New York
165.3�-2-28 '166.2 9-1-36 r�Pitbbru9h
/'' / t nh min P�Ilad�lphia
-artni JJG
C;k� n eN,:�At-'a��JT�JkCan.�sii Japa�t;1ETl;Esri Chi ricl Ken�r Esri �i;1EPJTk h5WCan;Esli Ja�,an;t;1E11,Esn Ching (Htnncl Kc�n6�l;Esri
C9liail�hcu t`JGCC,(il Ol �ri5b' ektvWer`tiT,�l�ors; anelt UserCl'�7 ]I7[6 pignG�I ,e�#N1a17ol�tiili' .$µf.�ijriottkiz G15 UserCc,mntunit;'
Part 1 /Question 7 [Critical Environmental No
Area]
Part 1 / Question 12a [National or State No
Register of Historic Places or State Eligible
Sites]
Part 1 / Question 12b [Archeological Sites] Yes
Part 1 / Question 13a [Wetlands or Other No
Regulated Waterbodies]
Part 1 / Question 15 [Threatened or No
Endangered Animal]
Part 1 /Question 16 [100 Year Flood Plain] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
Part 1 / Question 20 [Remediation Site] Yes
Short Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report ,
Bishop - 223 Maple Ave
1655VOW 1E6.29-1-1341,
1FF.2]_1.F2
165.362'14.' 766t29-154 16G.24.1-14
165'36-2-63 1 G5. 2�165 3f� -73
165':36-2-G7.7 1166.291-53 � 76f�.19-1-'�7 �.- ,gym,,,. 166.?9-1-23
r 165.36-2-76/r b+..
''' 1fifi.29-152 �
16S 29 1
4 2
� .i5.36215 "4,. � �. � 166.29-1-50 I
�16
w 16fi 2 -1 47, 1fi -i 25
�f11 i 166 2 -1 A7.1
165.36 22D �_'
165 36-Z a 166.29-1-27.1
x
166.29-1-44
165.36
W
165.36-2`22.7 R y, 16629-1-32
29-1-3'a
165.36!2-7 Ts '�! 3F..2 7w 764.19 6.29 1 67
� -1-6f;
165.36-2_T.2 1 166.29-1-H
165 36-2-58.1 •� k
•/n "� 165.36=2`-27 d
r 40 165. 6 r
165.36 2�55 3 _2�?6 °� � 166,29-1 36�
,' u
166.5 5 1
" 165.36-2-29 f166.29-1-59
165.36-2-56
161
F9-
.00
�. � "; 1FF.2J-2-Ft
16f 4% "'A 7
5:36-2'55, 165.36?30 - �.
r "
165.36-2-54 16 36-2-33
October 21,2022 1:1,128
0 0.01 0.01 0.03 mi
0 Counties 1 1
CRIBS 0 0.01 0.03 0.06 km
2022 NYS ITS GIS Program Off-
2022 Labels
� w.. �11 .. .;q
M
u :
A w^
"
r
e
d �
w
4 �
x 4.r
'y
f Bishop Subdivision: 223 Maple Ave.
Existing House & Lot #1 as viewed
Previously existing facing North West from Maple Ave.
driveway removed - 10-21-22
"
"
M
r 4 �
I
- � a,,.: ,,•r .�4 ,
TIM
k.
.OM " 4 eBishop -
.,m . Subdivision:
.ti
Existing front / South East of main
house (Lot #1) as viewed facing North
West
u� v
r
from Maple Ave. " •*
y a '
-21-22
r -
a.
v .e
v v
n e "°• ^
1 � u•� Hy, ... J r^^ yr F �.
fit+z _
00
OAI
Bishop Subdivision: 223 Maple Ave
.+a
..� . •
tl,r"'°" ram: � ,,.•_ _ . " �"��•
,
y
e u aw 'ya
New Lot #2 as viewed facing North
West from Maple Ave.
10-21-22
y re
e
k
1
M ..
u
�P9il i �l
Bishop Subdivision: 223 Maple Ave.
Adjacent residence & neighborhood
to North of project site as viewed
facing North from sidewalk
10-21-22
C.. .®
....,.._ rt}r,, r .1
rrrrrrffka�a3m} �
RRRRRRRRRRRR}}}}}}}}}}}2Si},r I� z,_„
e _ r
t r 3333 fi 91YYY...........
Ull(��tl� t���jrff£f3„IIIII i71735HD ii3i�
m r,
•� �. r••
MO
7 OP
M
q�
3 " Bishop Subdivision: 223 Maple Ave
Neighborhood to North of project site as
viewed facing North along Maple Ave.
rr 10-21-22
r
r,.
k7, ,
ny
If
Oim
LO
Robb—
e
u
i
wti
0
" ,.
N
Bishop Subdivision: 223 Maple Ave.
South Elevation of Main House as New sidewalk
viewed facing North from Green St. installed after City
10-21-22 .�No�a�� ��' water main break
�t14
L,
Bishop Subdivision: 223 Maple Ave.
Adjacent house South of project site as
.., � .. .
viewed facing South across Green St.
zig I10-21-22
� w.. �11 .. .;q
M
u :
A w^
"
r
e
d �
w
4 �
x 4.r
'y
f Bishop Subdivision: 223 Maple Ave.
Existing House & Lot #1 as viewed
Previously existing facing North West from Maple Ave.
driveway removed - 10-21-22
"
"
M
r 4 �
I
- � a,,.: ,,•r .�4 ,
TIM
k.
.OM " 4 eBishop -
.,m . Subdivision:
.ti
Existing front / South East of main
house (Lot #1) as viewed facing North
West
u� v
r
from Maple Ave. " •*
y a '
-21-22
r -
a.
v .e
v v
n e "°• ^
1 � u•� Hy, ... J r^^ yr F �.
fit+z _
00
OAI
Bishop Subdivision: 223 Maple Ave
.+a
..� . •
tl,r"'°" ram: � ,,.•_ _ . " �"��•
,
y
e u aw 'ya
New Lot #2 as viewed facing North
West from Maple Ave.
10-21-22
y re
e
k
1
M ..
u
�P9il i �l
Bishop Subdivision: 223 Maple Ave.
Adjacent residence & neighborhood
to North of project site as viewed
facing North from sidewalk
10-21-22
C.. .®
....,.._ rt}r,, r .1
rrrrrrffka�a3m} �
RRRRRRRRRRRR}}}}}}}}}}}2Si},r I� z,_„
e _ r
t r 3333 fi 91YYY...........
Ull(��tl� t���jrff£f3„IIIII i71735HD ii3i�
m r,
•� �. r••
MO
7 OP
M
q�
3 " Bishop Subdivision: 223 Maple Ave
Neighborhood to North of project site as
viewed facing North along Maple Ave.
rr 10-21-22
r
r,.
k7, ,
ny
If
Oim
LO
Robb—
e
u
i
wti
0
" ,.
N
Bishop Subdivision: 223 Maple Ave.
South Elevation of Main House as New sidewalk
viewed facing North from Green St. installed after City
10-21-22 .�No�a�� ��' water main break
�t14
L,
Bishop Subdivision: 223 Maple Ave.
Adjacent house South of project site as
.., � .. .
viewed facing South across Green St.
zig I10-21-22
Bishop: Minor (2) Lot Subdivision Original 2019 Photos
#223 Maple Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY
- Front / South Elevation of existing residence as viewed facing
West from Maple Ave.. Future Lot #1
nY
111 y r•. —w . .P �,IJ-
J
r .
F
N
r M1 p.
3
w..
Bishop: Minor (2) Lot Subdivision
#223 Maple Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY
- Front / South Elevation of existing residence and side yard as
viewed facing North from Maple Ave.. Future Lot #2
144
w.
r
w .d:
r
rc
w w
. yr,
E
r..
Bishop: •r (2) Lot Subdivision
Maple Ave., SaratogaSprings,
- Adjacent properties to the North of project site as viewed facing
North along . • '
� r
„ x
i4 e i
e
E y �
F1 1
IJ
IITT rr��1 , -
a
C
a
F
b
m
s,
Bishop: Minor (2) Lot Subdivision
#223 Maple Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY
- Property across Maple Ave. and to the North East of project
site as viewed facing North East from project site.
,s
T
3
rev
M4yr F � r
� err
s
d
V�
i
w�
a,
i
Y I
Bishop: Minor (2) Lot Subdivision
#223 Maple Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY
- Properties along Covell St. directly East of project site as
viewed facing East across Maple from project site.
p 9
1'
1 !
tiJ
•ti
\,t
.o
w. x
,a+tz
Bishop: Minor (2) Lot Subdivision
#223 Maple Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY
- Property directly South East of project site as viewed facing
South East across Maple Ave. from project site
Ft
r
L
F`
Bishop: Minor (2) Lot Subdivision
#223 Maple Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY
- Property directly South East of project site as viewed facing
South East across Maple Ave. from project site
a
r
a,
u
N'
L
,
It 0.
Bishop: Minor (2) Lot Subdivision
#223 Maple Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY
Property South & across Green St. from project site as
viewed facing South from intersection of Maple & Covell
IL
17
Adhr
w .
r
b ..
r 1
m�