HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210987 184 Church St Porch Demolition and Construction Zoning DeterminationPage | 1
January 11, 2023
Mr. Jeffrey Dumont
8 Pine Robin Road
Greenfield Center, New York 12833
RE: 184 Church Street, Parcel # 165.50-3-22
To whom it may concern,
This letter is in response to an inquiry regarding 184 Church Street, parcel # 165.50-3-22 in the City of
Saratoga Springs, hereinafter “the property”. The subject property is located in the Office Medical Business
District (OMB). The property is also located in the Architectural Review Overlay District. Actions subject to
review by the Design Review Board are specified in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section
13.9.F.2.
According to City records, the property contains a four family residential structure. This use is not permitted
in the OMB district, and requires a determination as to whether the use is lawfully preexisting nonconforming.
In considering the determination, the following factors must be examined:
Are there any Building Permits, Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) decisions, or Planning Board
approvals authorizing the use?
Was there any time since 1961 that the use has been permitted in the zoning district, and was the use
established during such time period?
Was the nonconforming use established prior to the effective date of the City’s comprehensive
zoning ordinance, enacted July 6, 1961, effective date August 25, 1961?
Can it be established that the nonconforming use has been continuous during the nonconforming
period, or has there been a period of discontinuance / abandonment exceeding 12 continuous months?
Regarding the first point, there are no City records of any building permits, ZBA decisions, or Planning Board
approvals for this property.
Beginning in 1961, the property was located in the R-3 district, which permitted only single family residences.
By 1971, the portion of the property abutting Church St. was located in the R-3 district, and the rear portion of
the property was located in the R-2 district. Under this configuration, single family or two family residences
were permitted. Three or four family residences were not. The property remained in the R-3 / R-2 zoning
district from 1971 – 1990. At no time between 1971 and 1990 were three or four family residences a
permitted use within the zoning district(s).
City of Saratoga Springs
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
474 Broadway, Suite 32
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
__________________________________
Telephone (518)587-3550 Ext. 2511
www.saratoga-springs.org
BUILDING & PLUMBING
CODE COMPLIANCE
ZONING
PATRICK COGAN
Zoning & Building Inspector
Extension 2491
DUANE MILLER
Assistant Building Inspector
Extension 2512
JEANNA FRITZ-THOMAS
Assistant Building Inspector
Extension 2541
ROBERT KOCIS
Assistant Building Inspector
Extension 2542
JOHN BARNEY
Assistant Building & Construction Inspector
Extension 2521
RICHARD TIERSCH
Assistant Building & Construction Inspector
Extension 2563
Page | 2
In 1990, the zoning district was changed to C-4 Office/Medical/Hospital Business District. Residential uses
were no longer permitted. In 1999 the C-4 district was renamed to the Office/Medical/Hospital Business
District (OMHBD). Residential uses were still not permitted. In 2012, the OMHBD district became the
Office/Medical/Business-2 district (OMB-2). The only residential use allowed in the OMB-2 district was
Senior Housing. Under the UDO (effective 7/15/22), the OMB-2 district became the Office Medical Business
District (OMB), and re-introduced single family and two family dwellings as an allowed use in the district.
It is therefore conclusive that from the advent of comprehensive zoning in the City of Saratoga Springs in
1961, three family or four family residences have not been a permitted use of this property at any time.
As to the question of when the nonconforming use was established, historical records reveal the following:
Although not necessarily conclusive on their own, the City’s Sanborn insurance maps prior to 1961
show the property containing a two story dwelling, with no indication of a 3 or 4 family classification
as “apartments”.
City Directories from 1960 – 1981 range from 2 – 4 residents listed and are inconclusive as to the
number of separate dwelling units.
City assessment records and tax rolls from 1956 through 1979 list a property classification of “5”,
which indicated a “2 or 3 family” residence.
The 1980 tax roll shows a property classification of “220” indicating a 2 family residence. 1980 was
the first year of conversion to the county tax system and involved a change in property use
classifications from the City’s system to the county system. It is unknown whether the classification
as a two family in 1980 was accurate, or was a result of converting from classification “5” under the
City’s system to an assumed compatible classification in the county system.
The 1981 tax roll shows a property classification of “411” indicating Apartments. The property
classification of “411” then continues through current records.
The Building Department index card for the property indicates an actual inspection of the premises in
the early 1970’s, when Mosher was the current owner. The information from the inspection card
indicates that it was a 2 story structure with a basement, with “Good” exterior condition and “Fair”
interior condition. The heating system was oil – hot air, and the water heater was gas fired. There
were 3 dwelling units.
In 1974, the Building Department in conjunction with the Housing Inspector compiled a list of all
known multi-family residences in the City. This compilation lists 184 Church Street as a 3 family
residence.
The Building Department file contains record of an electrical inspection by the New York Board of
Fire Underwriters from 1981. The inspection occurred on 11/3/81, and the certificate is dated
11/9/81. Matt Benson is listed as the owner of the property. The inspection was for (4) 100 Amp
service disconnects (panels) and (4) electrical meters.
Based on my findings, it is clear that the property was being used as a two family or a three family residence
prior to 1961 and through the early 1970s. During the early 1970s, it is abundantly clear that the property was
being used as a three family residence. The Building Inspector and Housing Inspector took no issue with the
fact that the property was being used as a three family residence, and classified it as such, even though the use
was not permitted in the zoning district. I do not have sufficient evidence to dispute that the three family use
was lawfully preexisting nonconforming at that time.
The change of the assessment property classification in 1981 and the electrical inspection report with 4
electrical meters in 1981 strongly suggest that the use of the property was changed to a four family at that
time. The change from three family to four family in 1981 or prior would have required a building permit and
would have required a variance of use from the ZBA. Neither were obtained. It is my determination that this
Page | 3
change in use from three family to four family was a violation of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the NY
State Building Construction Code – B (Multiple Dwellings).
Article 19 of the UDO contains the current zoning regulations regarding nonconformities. In accordance with
UDO Section 19.1.C: “Any use … established or constructed in violation prior to the effective date of this
Ordinance is not regarded as lawfully nonconforming and is not entitled to any of these rights.”
It is my determination that the use of this property as a four family residence does not qualify as lawfully
preexisting nonconforming, is not currently permitted in the OMB zoning district, and must therefore cease
immediately.
Additionally, it is my determination that the use of the property as a three family residence was considered to
be lawfully preexisting nonconforming prior to the conversion to a four family, and may lawfully be reverted
to a three family residence by issuance of a building permit, completion of required inspections, and issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy. The three family use shall not be deemed abandoned or discontinued so long
as the building permit to revert to a three family occupancy is obtained within 12 months from the date of this
determination. Following successful reversion, the three family use may continue in accordance with the
rights and limitations of UDO Section 19.2.
For purposes of the file record and future review, the following are also noted:
The lot area and lot width do not meet the minimum standards of the OMB district. The lot is considered
preexisting nonconforming and is subject to the provisions of UDO Section 19.4.
The current structure on the property does not meet the minimum setback standards of the OMB district. The
existing footprint of the structure is considered preexisting nonconforming and is subject to the provisions of
UDO Section 19.3. Any proposed expansion of the structure’s footprint or height would require significant
variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The property is currently the subject of an active enforcement effort by the office of Code Administration for
multiple identified violations. The violations must be resolved to the satisfaction of that office in the manner
prescribed.
Please contact the Building Department if any additional information is required or if clarification is
requested.
Sincerely,
Patrick D. Cogan
Zoning and Building Inspector