HomeMy WebLinkAbout20220918 142 East Avenue Garage demo and reconstruction Public Comment (2) TO: Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals ( )
CC: Saratoga City Council and all Members
Re: Comments to Project(aka 20220918) FROM:Jeff and Lorraine Klembczyk
Project: 142 East Avenue -Garage Demo and Reconstruction 15 Pinewood Avenue
Date: December 11, 2022 Saratoga Springs NY 12866
To the Board and Council:
We write these comments in objection to the above-identified project proposal, both as part of the ZBA
process, and concurrently the larger issue regarding whether the current UR2 zoning rules are
appropriate for these neighborhoods.
I. Zoning Variance Application 20220918
We are longtime Pinewood residents, having lived at 25 Pinewood for—15 years, and now moving back
to 15 Pinewood in the last year. We are therefore well aware of the character of the neighborhood and
its structures.
Initially, we wholly agree with, and therefore incorporate by reference, the previously-published
comments by John and Kerry Conley, and Margo Thompson,with respect to this project. We are told
others have also commented.
The scope and scale of this proposed project is out of character, beyond the appropriate definitions, and
should not be allowed. (In addition, for reasons beyond the scope of this letter,we believe the notice
provisions were not appropriately followed -e.g.,Thompson, pg 3.)
We direct further attention to various parts of the Application itself which appear deficient when
describing this proposal, and therefore have unfairly controlled the narrative.
a. The Application admits the proposal is for a "new garage" as a replacement for a "small" garage.
However,this project far transcends the typical definition of a garage, even though it has elements of a
garage on the first floor. So,to characterize this structure as a "replacement" is inaccurate.
Application:
8. Brief description of proposed action: Applicant would like to remove existing garage and build new garage.
1
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:
The garage will not produce and undesirable change as it is keepjpg the same architectural character of the house.
It will replace an old small garage that is in poor condition.
The other garages in the neighborhood are closer than the required setback to the property lines.The proposed garage will be
in alignment with the garage to the rear.
The ordinance itself defines the word "Garage":
GARAGE: An accessory building or portion of a principal building used for the storage of motor
vehicles of the occupants of the premises. (CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS ZONING ORDINANCE -
Appendix A: Definition of Terms—Page 10)
The proposed structure is obviously designed for more than the simple storage of motor vehicles.
b. Despite statements in the Application,the project is certainly not in alignment with the
neighbor's garage (Conley drawings), nor is it an appropriate "size and scale," and certainly is"setting a
precedent" as alleged,for all of the reasons discussed. (Conley,Thompson offer all relevant factors).
Application:
4. Whether the variance will have adverse physical or environmental effects on neighborhood ordistrict.The requested variance will not
have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district for the following reasons:
The garage will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood for the following reasons:
1)The proposed garage will be setback from the house and in alignment with the rear neighbor's garage.
2)The garage is designed to have similar architectural features as the house and be an appropriate size and scale.
3)There are other 2 car garages in the neighborhood and thus this garage is not setting a precedent.
Conley.
Approximately 22.41
the ground.
proximately 16 feel ofl ..
feel ofl the round op of the proposed
5'lurtlif9.
i
' e
_ I
23 PINEWOOD AVENUE
PROJECTED YARD VIEW WITH NEW STRUCTURE
2
I I�.
REAR VIEW OF PROPOSED GARAGE WITH TYPICAL
NEIGHBORHOOD GARAGE SUPERIMPOSED
The garage space itself is a small percentage of the space actually being proposed, and the footprint by
admission is more than 2x the size of the existing structure (737 vs 345 sq ft).
Application:
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 hardship is self-created as the applicant is requesting to have a new garage.This would allow for better access into the
garage with better alignment with driveway.
-n 1Z f
Z
i z3 p
<m z
x w
22
I I I
.os•c
3
em fpa T CP�*%"#.- t 3?.50' Cwa OW"
- 8 ft f 1
Lo
?IL
g v S W ALXr
■ l tla CIf'M)J..J'x]0.77i
0 f O AO
I (; �O/J i
�Z
N '
336!—x
4.5-2 -
38.5'_ — +
T NEWGARAGE x4 1
new
DcrfvEwnv -: ��
r mm.
NEW
Ow.Vf'i:%.Y
`• ti M�
Moreover, the presence of an entire network of second floor, floor-to-ceiling windows facing
backwards, have nothing to do with a typical garage structure.
Application:
19 1A---LL-L-L I I I I I I I
-- —— —
EAST EXTERM ELEVATION
C. Finally, any statements regarding the way the proposed "garage" somehow complements the
main property are misplaced. In fact, none of the garages in the neighborhood resemble the scope of
the proposed project (examples in Application, Conley).And to say that the overall square footage
(-1300 estimated) is complementary to the main house (which itself is only 1665-Zillow) is a stretch.
4
Application:
Zillow:
e �'` V Zillow d Edit V Save �Share ...More
e0IF
3 bd 2 ba 1,665 sgft
142 East Ave,Saratoga Springs,NY 12866
Sold:$600,000 Sold on 01/31/20 Zestimate`"-':$782,200
----------------
f Est.ref!payment:$3,879/mo 0 Refinance your loan
Home value Owner tools Home details Neighborhood details
Summarizing,this project proposal—and its Application—unfairly stretch the definition of both
"replacement" and "garage"to the detriment of all affected neighbors.This purported "replacement" is
a pretext to add significant,habitable square footage to the property, and should be reviewed in that
context, hopefully leading to a re-work of the project into something more appropriate.
II. UDO for UR2
Beyond this particular project, we respectfully request a review of the regulations regarding these types
of projects. It strains credulity to allow "replacement garages" or"accessory structures"with the scope
and scale of this project,to be allowed within the spirit of those well-traveled definitions.
5
The replication of many such projects could permanently alter the entire density and character of
Saratoga neighborhoods, its main attraction.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jeff Klembczyk
Lorraine Klembczyk
cc:
mayor@saratoga-springs.org
dillon.moran@saratoga-springs.org
minita.sanghvi@saratoga-springs.org
iason.golub@saratoga-springs.org
lames.montagnino@saratoga-springs.org
Encs:
20220918 Application
Conley Comment
Thompson Comment
6
**HANDWRITTEN APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED** [FOR OFFICE USE1
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS (Application#)
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY (Date received)
J � SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866-2296
TEL: 518-587-3550 X2533
�t'h,_,..Y,_.,, •,�`' 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)* OWNER(S) �/fnotapp#cant) ATTORNEY/AGENT
Name Megan Hayes Susan Davis/SD Atelier Architecture LLC
142 East Avenue 511 Broadway ,2nd Floor
Address
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
Phone 603-533-6667 / / 518-587-3385 /
kjthayes@yahoo.com sue@sdatelier.com
Email
Primary Contact Person: Applicant Owner 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: m Owner ❑ Lessee ❑ Under option to lease or purchase
PROPERTY INFORMATION
142 East Avenue 166 .38 2 72
1. Property Address/Location: Tax Parcel No.: - -
(for example: /65.52—4—37)
2. Date acquired by current owner: 2019 3. Zoning District when purchased: UR-2
4. Present use of property: Single Residence 5. Current Zoning District: UR-2
6. Has a previous ZBA application/appeal been filed for this property?
❑Yes(when? For what? )
0 No
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: Applicant would like to remove existing garage and build new garage.
9. Is there an active written violation for this parcel? ❑Yes V No
10. Has the work, use or occupancy to which this appeal relates already begun? ❑Yes Z No
11. Identify the type of appeal you are requesting(check a//that apply):
❑ INTERPRETATION (p. 2) ❑VARIANCE EXTENSION (p. 2) ❑ USE VARIANCE (pp. 3-6) 12 AREA VARIANCE(pp. 6-7)
Revised 01/2021
ZON/NGBOARD OFAPPEALSAPPL/C4T/ON FORM PAGE2
INTERPRETATION—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary): Not Applicable
1. Identify the section(s)of the Zoning Ordinance for which you are seeking an interpretation:
Section(s)
2. How do you request that this section be interpreted?
3. If interpretation is denied,do you wish to request alternative zoning relief? MYes ❑No
4. If the answer to#3 is "yes,"what alternative relief do you request?❑ Use Variance ❑Area Variance
EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary):
1. Date original variance was granted: 2. Type of variance granted? ❑ Use ❑Area
3. Date original variance expired:
5. Explain why the extension is necessary.Why wasn't the original timeframe sufficient?
When requesting an extension of time for an existing variance,the applicant must prove that the circumstances upon which the original
variance was granted have not changed. Specifically demonstrate that there have been no significant changes on the site, in the
neighborhood,or within the circumstances upon which the original variance was granted:
Revised 01/2021
ZON/NGBOARD OFAPPEALSAPPL/c4T/ONFORM FAGE.3
USE VARIANCE—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary): Not Applicable
A use variance is requested to permit the following:
For the Zoning Board to grant a request for a use variance, an applicant must prove that the zoning regulations create an unnecessary
hardship in relation to that property. In seeking a use variance,New York State law requires an applicant to prove all four of the following
"tests".
1. That the applicant cannot realize a reasonable financial return on initial investment for any currently permitted use on the property.
"Dollars¢s" proof must be submitted as evidence.The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return for the following
reasons:
A. Submit the following financial evidence relating to this property(attach additional evidence as needed):
1) Date of purchase: Purchase amount: $
2) Indicate dates and costs of any improvements made to property after purchase:
Date Improvement Cost
3)Annual maintenance expenses:$ 4)Annual taxes:$
5)Annual income generated from property: $
6)City assessed value: $ Equalization rate: Estimated Market Value:$
7)Appraised Value:$ Appraiser: Date:
Appraisal Assumptions:
Revised 01/2021
ZON/NGBOARD OFAPPEALSAPPL/C4T/ONFORM PAGE{
B. Has property been listed for sale with ❑Yes If"yes",for how long?
the Multiple Listing Service(MLS)? [FINo
1) Original listing date(s): Original listing price:$
If listing price was reduced,describe when and to what extent:
2) Has the property been advertised in the newspapers or other publications? ❑Yes ❑No
If yes,describe frequency and name of publications:
3) Has the property had a"For Sale"sign posted on it? ❑Yes ❑No
If yes, list dates when sign was posted:
4) How many times has the property been shown and with what results?
2. That the financial hardship relating to this property is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood.
Difficulties shared with numerous other properties in the same neighborhood or district would not satisfy this requirement. This
previously identified financial hardship is unique for the following reasons:
Revised O1/2021
ZON/NGBOARD OFAPPEALSAPPL/C4T/ONFORM PAGES
3. That the variance, if granted,will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Changes that will alter the character of a
neighborhood or district would be at odds with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The requested variance will not alter the
character of the neighborhood for the following reasons:
4. That the alleged hardship has not been self-created.An applicant(whether the property owner or one acting on behalf of the property
owner)cannot claim "unnecessary hardship" if that hardship was created by the applicant,or if the applicant acquired the property
knowing(orwas in a position to know)the conditions forwhich the applicant is seeking relief.The hardship has not been self-created
for the following reasons:
Revised O1/2021
ZON/NGBOARD OFAPPEALSAPPL/c4T/ONFORM FAGE6
AREA VARIANCE—PLEASE ANSWERTHE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary):
The applicant requests relief from the following Zoning Ordinance article(s)
Dimensional Requirements District Requirement Requested
Sidevard Set hack for Accessory huildino 5 feet 3 feet (2'-0" variance)
10% 10.5% (.5%variance)
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 client has considered alternative locations, but would like to maintain the yard and be able to have a straight driveway to back
out of garage. there is no available land to purchase. The reduction of the garage size will not properly store two cars.
The square footage of the garage is over what is allowable because of the overhang.
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:
The garage will not produce and undesirable change as it is keeping the same architectural character of the house.
It will replace an old small garage that is in poor condition.
The other garages in the neighborhood are closer than the required setback to the property lines. The proposed garage will be
in alignment with the garage to the rear.
Revised 01/2021
ZON/NGBOARD OFAPPEALSAPPL/c4T/ONFORM FAGE7
3. Whether the variance is substantial. The requested variance is not substantial for the following reasons:
The essential character of the neighborhood is for garage structures that are detached and set back from the main residence.
The scale and proportion of the garage will complement the main house. The variance is not substantial because the
sideyard setback request is in keeping with other garages in the neighborhood.
The percentage request is minimal and due to the overhang and to ensure that a variance is not required after construction.
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 garage will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood for the following reasons:
1)The proposed garage will be setback from the house and in alignment with the rear neighbor's garage.
2)The garage is designed to have similar architectural features as the house and be an appropriate size and scale.
3)There are other 2 car garages in the neighborhood and thus this garage is not setting a precedent.
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 hardship is self-created as the applicant is requesting to have a new garage. This would allow for better access into the
garage with better alignment with driveway.
Revised 01/2021
ZON/NGBOARD OFAPPEALSAPPL/C4T/ONFORM PAGER
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? m 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
I/we,the property owner(s),or purchaser(s)/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:
(applicant signature)
Date:
(applicant 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
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 Other 2 tar Garages on East Avenue
M++"
Tat. z:
,. �
M
RE
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
Going Forward
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.
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 effector 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
J
I � Q
} p
2 �
� � H
LU
Ln
n
= N
LU
Q N M C)
i Q � � N
N a
n O
a p
nn ° o Qo
c _ F- o
O LL w o m N N
U 06
O O � a ^ N N `"
� I LU _
4-j I
w
0 w
o j i w O < J uLL
O
U j tau
a w m N a
J
O �
-" u z
� o
0 >- o
Q� O LJJ 0 CO
}
ttoI a
J O L
Q a a
aC V 0
Q /
Q-
Q w a
? c o
= N Z o p
I Q w Q Lu
LU
v I p Q N = 2 z
w =
Q N Q w aD
Q J N �.
I O U oc Lu O
+-+ a = > N
cr► O p
c6 O
w I
a O
N L. 2
I;t O ac
r O
w _
(7
w I-I-I
z
0
LL
�,
. -
\.
am
a``
•I , ;4
41
OMPT
!•1p! d v�ha
1 � 1
12/7/22, 10:14 AM Zimbra
Zimbra aneisha.samuels@saratoga-springs.org
142 East Avenue Variance Application
From : Margo Thompson Tue, Dec 06, 2022 04: 18 PM
<margoxthompson@g
mail.com>
Subject : 142 East Avenue
Variance Application
To : aneisha samuels
<aneisha.samuels@sa
ratoga-springs.org>
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City
network. Please contact IT Support if you need
assistance determining if it's a threat before
opening attachments or clicking any links.
Re. Project #20220918
142 East Avenue Variance Application
Dear Ms. Samuels-Sanford,
Thanks so much for speaking with me about the proposed
variance submitted by the owner(s) of 142 East Avenue
Saratoga Springs, NY. It was very helpful information
since I was unable to attend the Public Hearing on
November 28th.
https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=26653&tz=America/New_York 1/4
12/7/22, 10:14 AM Zimbra
I am a neighbor living at 16 Lefferts Street, approximately
one block away from 142 East Avenue. I have owned this
home since 2012.
I am very concerned about the proposed project at 142
East Avenue. Not only is it closer to the lot lines than
necessary given the size of the property, but the project is
completely out of scale and over-sized for an accessory
structure on a single family lot. While there are a number
of other two-car garages in the neighborhood, there is
nothing of that size and scale. All other one- and two-car
garages in the neighborhood are approximately 15'-16' in
height and do not include dormers, etc. that extend the
height of the building to approximately 22'. At a more
modest height, the owner(s) would still be able to
accommodate storage on the second floor. The proposed
project more closely resembles a single family dwelling as
opposed to a garage with storage. The proposed project
is not the "reconstruction" of a garage nor in keeping with
existing precedents in the neighborhood. It could easily
set a new precedent whereby the density of structures
could be increased significantly and change the character
of the neighborhood entirely.
The scale of the project (essentially the height and design)
will certainly decrease the value of adjoining properties -
particularly the one to the east. Their light and sunlight
exposure will be significantly decreased and the view to
the west will be essentially "a wall." The proposed project
will create unnecessary hardship for neighbors when the
goal of a two-car garage with storage could be achieved
with an alternate design that is in fact, in character with
the neighborhood.
https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=26653&tz=America/New_York 2/4
12/7/22, 10:14 AM Zimbra
Although the current project description and variance
application do not include a request for habitable space,
the proposed structure certainly looks to be headed in that
direction. Since a half-bath on the first floor and electrical
provisions are permitted under existing zoning regulations,
plumbing and an electrical panel could be installed legally
under the current proposed project. Once those features
are brought to the interior of the building, it becomes very
easy to extend them to the second floor, virtually out-of-
sight and without a permit. It then falls to the code
enforcement/building department or neighbors to identify
a potential future zoning violation. As a neighbor, I do not
want to be obliged to monitor the comings-and-goings of
various people at nearby residences. I think that is a
hardship that will be imposed on both existing residents in
the neighborhood and City personnel.
Lastly, I walk my dog by 142 East Avenue almost every
day. Prior to the public hearing, I did notice the sign
posted in the yard regarding a Variance Application and
Public Hearing on November 28th at 7 PM. However, the
sign was located way up next to the shrubbery near the
house and it was turned sideways so as not to be visible
from the street or to passing cars. I could see it only
because I was on-foot walking in a north-south direction.
I thought it was placed in a rather inconspicuous location
and now I understand why; the owner(s) obviously did not
want to call attention to the Variance Application nor to
the proposed project. I do not like that type of intentional
concealment.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Margo Thompson
https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=26653&tz=America/New_York 3/4
12/7/22, 10:14 AM Zimbra
16 Lefferts Street
Saratoga Springs, NY
(443) 223-9239
https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=26653&tz=America/New_York 4/4