The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20220918 142 East Avenue Garage demo and reconstruction Public Comment Re: Comments to Proposed Zoning Variance Request John and Kerry Conley Project: 142 East Avenue -Garage Demo and Reconstruction 23 Pinewood Avenue Date: November 28, 2022 Saratoga Springs NY 12866 Who We Are Kerry and I have lived at 23 Pinewood Avenue for the last 30 years. It is where we raised our three daughters, and where we made a house a family home. We truly love our home and the character, beauty and grace of the neighborhood. We love our yard and often sit on the patio to enjoy the trees, flowers and setting sun. Background Our property abuts the proposed project location at 142 East Avenue with a rear property line. The proposed project drawings depict a two-story structure with a walk-up "storage space" which—based on its size—is more likely to be used as a living space. The proposal is inconsistent and out of character with comparable structures in the neighborhood (excerpt shown below). After a close review of two-car garages on East Avenue from Lake Street to McClaren, we found no accessory structures that were even close to the size and scale of the proposed structure. They are all single story, two-car garage structures with storage capacity above. Example of Ocher 2 Lar Garages an East Avenue ■1d* 440 T ` Page: 1 Re: Comments to Proposed Zoning Variance Request John and Kerry Conley Project: 142 East Avenue -Garage Demo and Reconstruction 23 Pinewood Avenue Date: November 28, 2022 Saratoga Springs NY 12866 Our Impacts The proposed development as shown would hurt our property value, which is a significant asset for us. Due to its size, the building would block out sunlight and require trees to be cut down — drastically altering the unique feel and natural beauty of our home. It also encroaches on our privacy. The way the building is designed, people on the upper floors would have a direct view into our upper-level bedroom and bathroom. The proposed structure is actually closer to our house at 23 Pinewood Avenue (37 feet) than the applicant's (38.5 feet). Taken together, these factors would substantially reduce our quality of life. Mass and Scale of the Proposed Accessory Structure The proposed project is out of character with the neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. The height of the proposed structure is NOT compatible with the form and context of the site and neighboring properties. The proposed structure has a height of 22.41 , towering over our typical garage, which is 14.5 feet tall. Because of the height of the proposed structure, the rear facing windows look over our garage with a line of sight directly into the main bedroom/bathroom - effectively eliminating any sense of privacy. 2. The scale of the proposed structure is NOT compatible with the relationship of the building to neighboring structures. The footprint of the proposed structure is 162% of our garage, which is typical of garages in the neighborhood. 3. The relationship of the dimension and mass of proposed structure between it and adjoining buildings is NOT compatible with the character of the neighboring as there are no apartment garages in the neighborhood. The volume of our typical garage is 4,696 cf, dwarfed by the proposed structure estimated to be 12,624 cf, or 269% of our garage. For context we have included several visual representations of the size and scale of the proposed structure compared to our 2-car garage, a comparable structure that actually is consistent with similar structures on East Avenue. Page: 2 Re: Comments to Proposed Zoning Variance Request John and Kerry Conley Project: 142 East Avenue -Garage Demo and Reconstruction 23 Pinewood Avenue Date: November 28, 2022 Saratoga Springs NY 12866 GoingForward In my discussions with the planning staff, and consistent with the zoning ordinance, an accessory structure is an "unfinished, uninhabitable space in a detached structure." Based on the size and scale of the proposed structure, it's reasonable to conclude that the applicant is counting on complacency from neighbors and building/planning department to use the structure as a secondary living space. We recommend that the zoning board reject the proposed application in order to preserve our quality of life and the character of the neighborhood as a whole. We ask that they simply approve a structure that is comparable with other neighboring homes. A review of the plans shows the structure includes a walk-up stair access to a second floor living space. The second- floor access represents approximately 105 sf. The elimination of the second floor and corresponding stair access would reduce the accessory building area such that the application would follow the accessory structure area requirement. m ® g c 1 Definition:Accessory structure-An unfinished and uninhabitable space in a detached structure.Includes private garages,storage sheds,non- commercial greenhouses,swimming pools,pool houses,antennas&satellite dishes and solar/heating/ventilation/utility equipment. Approving the plan "as is" would be detrimental to the Saratoga Springs community - setting a precedent that could jeopardize the unique character, charm and beauty of our neighborhood. Page: 3 Re: Comments to Proposed Zoning Variance Request John and Kerry Conley Project: 142 East Avenue -Garage Demo and Reconstruction 23 Pinewood Avenue Date: November 28, 2022 Saratoga Springs NY 12866 The zoning ordinance is here to protect all property owners from overreach and development outside not only the letter of the ordinance but also the spirit of the ordinance. That is why the ordinance has other evaluation criteria beyond the numbers, as outlined below: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; The proposed development will change both the character of the neighborhood and have a significant negative impact on our property value. While approving one development is an incremental change to the neighborhood, setting this new precedent would have significant implications for other homeowners who also value the rare character and singular feel of the neighborhood. Do we really want to set a precedent for erecting huge accessory buildings on small single-family lots? Do we want to passively allow the ordinance to be broken, paving the way for more of these spaces to become Airbnb rentals, apartments, or other habitable spaces?Who will enforce the ordinance overtime? How many more long- time homeowners will be negatively impacted by this new precedent? What is remedy? 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; If the applicant is truly looking for additional storage space, there are many options available including an addition to the main house or use of local storage units. As with our garage, and other comparable units across the neighborhood (and shown above), storage space is available in the attic space. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial; Though the area and side setbacks do not seem substantial, they are a function of the massive size of the proposed structure which is 269% bigger than comparable units. So, in that way they are substantial. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; Page: 4 Re: Comments to Proposed Zoning Variance Request John and Kerry Conley Project: 142 East Avenue -Garage Demo and Reconstruction 23 Pinewood Avenue Date: November 28, 2022 Saratoga Springs NY 12866 The proposed development will have an adverse effect on the physical and environmental conditions. Our property will now have a 22-foot-high wall, 5 feet off the property line, blocking sunlight and destroying the current natural beauty and enjoyment of our yard. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the ZBA, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of an area variance. The difficulty was self-created in that the applicant could have proposed a structure like all other structures in the neighborhood and there would be no need for a variance. Page: 5 a Q 1I N I N LU I Q N M Ql Q Q cc 1-1 c-I N cwn Q a O [FIE LU U- U- 0 w N� o O 11 w p m Ln N N Ln U 7 O O 06 d ^ N 4 m m Eq LU +-+ > w DC z p 0 V) LL U LL O I w Ora u j � a � N 4 z C7 a 1n w r- a w H Ln m N Q Q J E u z � o 0 } o I N = O o CO tto W cn J O L qO < LLJ ac V 0--- w a O v N Z oP QLu U w Q S w aC Q N Q Q w J N un O Q c6 O LU O � LL ac I w _ U I f > LD w w Hill z 0z0 I I j LL A *r D � ? r rµ�