Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20221034 Marion Avenue Zoning Interpretation ADDITIONAL INFORMATION John lacoponi February 20, 2023 Zoning Board of Appeals Application#20221034- Marion Ave Zoning Sect 1.7 Interpretation Appeal Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. This appeal is in regard to the Sept 12, 2022 interpretation from the City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Officer, Patrick Cogan regarding the proposed expansion of commercial uses on Marion Ave. I am a homeowner and resident in the neighborhood in the immediate vicinity of proposed commercial expansion. I believe that that September determination is incorrect. Before I get into the heart of the matter I would like to first give the board some background about why this is so important to us. Our Neighborhood Association was formed over 40 years to represent and protect the interests of our residents. We have worked with city and planning officials on every master plan, comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and the UDO. A fundamental purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to provide maximum protection to residential areas. Despite what may be represented by developers,the Marion Ave corridor from Rt 50 north to the City line IS primarily residential. The 2015 Comprehensive Plan designates this entire stretch of Marion Ave as a Residential Neighborhood. [RN-2]. Prior Comp plans had the same designation. Of the 21 parcels along Marion, 18 are residential, and only 3 are commercial. We acknowledge that small, neighborhood scale commercial currently exists in this RN-2 along Marion Ave, and complements the residential uses. An ATM, a gas station, and a car wash. There is no retail in this RN-2, let alone 7,000 square feet of retail space as proposed in this expansion. The Comprehensive Plan,the City's vision for future land use makes it clear what protection of residential neighborhoods means. Reference: Planning Board NOTICE OF DECISION IN CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. PB APR#202 10062. MARION AVE.— MAPLE DELL PUD. June 2, 2021. "During the 2015 Comprehensive Plan development process, consideration was given as to whether the RN-2 district should accommodate new commercial growth. Opposition was raised by the public during the development of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan regarding the expansion of new commercial uses into residential neighborhoods especially those characterized by single-family homes (e. g. UR2 zones). The 2015 Comprehensive Plan incorporates the principle— based on extensive public input— that commercially designated areas in RN-2 and RN-1)should not expand beyond existing areas." Zoning maps dating back decades show that the district boundary between commercial and residential has not moved. In 1969, when the city approved a gas station directly across the street from residences, neighbors objected. This was before there was any regulation preventing that proximity, and the objection was denied. In 1975 those same neighbors objected to the building of a car wash caddy corner across the street, and again the objection was denied. The Zoning Board did however stipulate that due to the primarily residential character of 1 the neighborhood no further commercial north of the car wash was permitted. The stipulation did not have an expiration date, and the conditions in the neighborhood have not changed. The only real change was that after Stewart's bought a residential property on Marion Ave.they razed the house. Stewart's has argued that residential is up to the north. I would ask you to look directly across the street and you will see houses that have been there since at least the 1960's, with the same homeowners still living there. The intent of the city over many decades, and affirmed with as recently as the 2015 Comp Plan and the 2022 UDO is crystal clear. There is not supposed to be any commercial north of the existing car wash. Any commercial expansion will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and creates a detriment to nearby properties. We are homeowners and residents representing the interests of our community. We look to you,the ZBA,to provide the maximum protection to residential areas as intended by the Zoning Ordinance Zoning Ordinance Sect 1.3 Intent and Purposes&the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Ordinance The Zoning Ordinance was adopted by the City Council, September 4, 2012, and became effective October 4, 2012. Section 1.7 of the Zoning Ordinance is provided here for reference,with the two relevant clauses underlined here for emphasis. 1.7 INTERPRETATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Where there is uncertainty as to the boundary of any district contained within this Chapter or as shown on City maps,the following rules shall apply: A. Unless shown to the contrary on a City map,the boundary lines of districts are the center lines of streets, or such lines extended,the center lines of railroad rights-of way,the center lines of creeks and waterways. B. Where district boundaries are indicated as approximately following the City boundary line, lot lines, or projections thereof, said boundaries shall be construed to be coincident with such lines. C. If a center line or right-of-way line of a street, highway, railroad, public utility, or watercourse, which is approximately coincident with a district boundary, is moved up to a distance of 50 feet,the district line shall be automatically adjusted to be coincident with such line. D. Where a zoning district boundary line divides a lot or land in single ownership as existinjR at the time of this enactment,the district reauirements on either side of the boundary may be construed, at the property owner's option, as extending into the remaining portion of the property for a distance not exceeding 100 feet. There is no dispute about the specific wording of the duly enacted Zoning Ordinance. Over the 10 years it was in effect, section 1.7 was never amended. May 2022 Determination 2 In the May 2022 determination the Zoning Officer Patrick Cogan laid out extensive background research into this matter. That background is available to you so I won't repeat it here. The gist of his findings regarding Sect 1.7 can be summarized as follows. i. It was not the intent of the writers to have the introduction to Sect 1.7 apply to all sections A to D. How the Zoning Ordinance was approved this way is not certain. ii. How and why the word "land" was inserted into the Zoning Ordinance, when it never existed in prior versions dating back decades is not known. The inclusion Clause 1.7D "was never meant to include the scenario where an owner can acquire an adjacent lot that is knowingly in a different zoning district, then choose to expand the zoning district requirements from one lot to the other. This would effectively subvert the requirements for use variances." The Zoning officer issued a determination that Stewart's should NOT be allowed to extend the TRB district 100 feet to the north into parcel 166.5-4-1.1,which is wholly within the UR-2 district. September 2022 arguments by Stewart's In their letter of July 2022, and presentation to the ZBA on September 12, 2022, Stewart's made the following argument. i.They argued that regardless of intent, Sect 1.7D it must be followed exactly because that's as it was written and enacted. "Every single word in the Zoning Ordinance matters" Video archive of the Sept 12 ZBA is posted on the City website, https://saratogas r�ingsny.new.swagit.com/videos/184215. and the specific quote is excerpted here. httgs://voutu.be/BGgLIcfz3Y9U ii. Agrees that Section 1.7 in it's entirety is as-written and as-enacted. And agrees that there is no uncertainty as to the district boundary, but state that since that intro was a mistake the way it was written, it should be ignored. September 12, 2022 Revised Determination In his revised determination, the Zoning Officer reiterated that it was never the intent of the clause (1.7D)to allow the 100 foot move as proposed, but agreed that Stewart's did own land on either side of the district boundary at the time of enactment of the Zoning Ordinance. "I cannot dispute that the enactment of the Local Law in 2012 repealed and replaced any prior Zoning Ordinance, including prior iterations of the Zoning Map. I would therefore find it very difficult to interpret that the clause"as existing at the time of this enactment"means anything other than October 4, 2012.As stated in the Applicant's Response, 1 do not dispute that Stewart's owned the land in question in single ownership prior to October 4, 2012 and thereafter. Based on careful consideration of the information and arguments provided by the Applicant, 1 must reverse my prior determination. It is my revised determination that the district requirements of the TRB zoning district may be construed to extend 100 feet north into parcel 166. 5-4-1. 1 as proposed by the property owner, and the resulting 100 foot section of the lot would be afforded the rights and bound by the requirements of the TRB district." He stated that a ruling to the contrary was not adequately defensible. He also stated that one of the cited examples of precedential use was incorrect. 3 We believe that ruling to be in error, and are asking the ZBA to overturn it. February 2023 Appeal I will summarize our position as follows: • The 2012 Zoning Ordinance was thoroughly reviewed, and enacted in Oct 2012. • The 2012 Zoning Ordinance Sect 1.7 should have either be enforced as enacted, or amended. • Sect 1.7 was never amended. • Stewart's argues that regardless of intent,the Sect 1.7D should be enforced as it was written • The developer(Stewart's) cannot pick and choose which clauses they want to be valid. • In both the May and September determinations, the Zoning Officer made it abundantly clear that Sect 1.7D was never intended to allow a situation like this there where a property owner can effectively use this clause to essentially subvert the use variance process, and extend commercial use 100' into a residential area. • The desire to expand commercial 100'to the north is a self-created need. • Expansion of commercial 100'to the north creates a detriment to peaceful enjoyment of residents on neighboring properties. • Allowing expansion of commercial 100'to the north is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan We are therefore asking the ZBA to enforce the ZO Sect 1.7-as written & in its entirety,to provide maximum protection of our residential area, and decide that the district requirements of the TRB zoning district should NOT be allowed to extend 100 feet north into parcel 166. S-4- 1. 1. Thank you, John Iacoponi Resident& Homeowner,Avenue A VP, Maple Ave, Marion Ave and Maple Dell Neighborhood Association 4