Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Notes - Split Zoned LotsZoning Notes – Split Zoned Lots The City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Ordinance has always had provisions for dealing with lots that are divided by the boundary between two or more zoning districts. Originally, this was for practical purposes. There was no parcel boundary detail on the zoning maps and the divisions between districts was not precise enough to delineate along property lines. 1961: Section 320 – Interpretation of district boundaries Where uncertainty exists… E. In all cases when a district boundary is located not further than twenty-five feet away from a lot line of record, the boundary shall be construed to coincide with such line. 430.04 Lots in two districts Where a district boundary divides a lot in ownership of record at the time of enactment of this ordinance, said lot shall be regulated under requirements for the less restrictive district provided that the lot has street frontage in the less restricted district. Major Revision to Map and Ordinance 7/7/71, Ordinance text through 4/3/72: 135-6 – Interpretation of district boundaries Where uncertainty exists… E. In all cases when a district boundary is located not farther than twenty-five feet away from a lot line of record, the boundary shall be construed to coincide with such line. 135-13. Lots in two districts. Where a district boundary divides a lot in ownership of record at the time of enactment of this chapter, said lot shall be regulated under requirements for the less restrictive district provided that the lot has street frontage in the less restricted district. Updates through 1979: 135-6 Interpretation of district, historic site area, and city landmark boundaries. [Amended 5/16/77] Where uncertainty exists… E. In all cases when a district, historic site area or city landmark boundary is located not farther than twenty- five feet away from a lot line of record, the boundary shall be construed to coincide with such line. 135-13. Lots in two districts. Where a district boundary divides a lot in ownership of record at the time of enactment of this chapter, said lot shall be regulated under requirements for the less restrictive district provided that the lot has street frontage in the less restricted district. Through 12/25/87: 135-6 Unchanged from 5/16/77 135-13 Unchanged from 1971 Proposed Changes in 1989 (Never Adopted) 240-2.2 Interpretation of district boundaries Where uncertainty exists… E. In all cases when a district boundary is located not farther than twenty-five feet away from a lot line of record, the boundary shall be construed to coincide with such line. G. Added language where district boundaries are approximately following property lines, lot lines, or projections thereof, boundary construed to be coincident H. Added same language regarding boundaries parallel to property and lot lines 240-2.3 Lots in two districts Where a district boundary line, as appearing on the Zoning Map, divides a lot or land in single ownership as existing at the time of this enactment, the use authorized on and the district requirements applying to the less restricted portion of the property shall be construed as extending into the remaining portion of the property beyond the district boundary lines for a distance not exceeding one hundred (100) feet. Otherwise, unless shown to the contrary on the Zoning Map, the boundary lines of districts are the center lines of streets or such lines extended, railroad right-of-way lines and the center lines of creeks and waterways. Questions concerning the exact location of the district boundary lines shall be interpreted by the Zoning Officer. The text adopted 8/6/90 for these two sections is exactly what was proposed in 1989 above. 240-2.3 Lots in two districts [Amended 1/22/91] Where a district boundary line, as appearing on the Zoning Map, divides a lot or land in single ownership as existing at the time of this enactment, the use authorized on and the district requirements applying to the district on either side of the boundary shall be construed as extending into the remaining portion of the property beyond the district boundary lines for a distance not exceeding one hundred (100) feet. Otherwise, unless shown to the contrary on the Zoning Map, the boundary lines of districts are the center lines of streets or such lines extended, railroad right-of-way lines and the center lines of creeks and waterways. Questions concerning the exact location of the district boundary lines shall be interpreted by the Zoning Officer. Major update to text and maps 8/3/99: 240-2.2 Exactly the same as 1990 240-2.3 Exactly the same as amended 1/22/91 5/15/2001 Version – Post Special Development Districts (1999), Pre-transects (2003) 240-2.2 Interpretation of district boundaries Where uncertainty exists… E, G, H still the same as 1990. E is unchanged from 1961 except further to farther in ‘71 240-2.3 Lots in two districts – same as amended 1/22/91 Through 2012: 240-2.2 Interpretation of district boundaries Where uncertainty exists… E, G, H still the same as 1990. E is unchanged from 1961 except further to farther in ‘71 240-2.3 Lots in two districts – same as amended 1/22/91 Effective October 2012 (Current Version with minor amendments) For the 2012 Zoning Ordinance, staff and consultants undertook an effort to “simplify” the Ordinance and make it more accessible. Much of the legalese was cut, sections were reordered, combined, etc. This unfortunately resulted in multiple unintended consequences. 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 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 existing at the time of this enactment, the district requirements 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. Conditions E and H have been removed (E - within 25’ of lot line, H - parallel to property or lot line) Former Section 240-2.3 “Lots in two districts” was combined with former Section 240-2.2 “Interpretation of District Boundaries” and made item “D”. “Otherwise, unless shown to the contrary on the Zoning Map, the boundary lines of districts are the center lines of streets or such lines extended, railroad right-of-way lines and the center lines of creeks and waterways. Questions concerning the exact location of the district boundary lines shall be interpreted by the Zoning Officer.” – Language was duplicative and removed The regrouping and reorganization of this clause was never intended to change the qualifying condition. i.e. “Where there is uncertainty…” was never meant to apply to the extension of district requirements up to 100’. This is evidenced by over 50 years of Zoning Ordinance history, usage, and precedent. I have found zero evidence of intent, discussion, or justification for changing the qualifying condition. In the 10 years since the condition was moved under 1.7, it has never been interpreted to only apply “where there is uncertainty”. The condition has been used many times since 2012, and there has never been a requirement to establish that uncertainty exists before the clause can be used. Established case law on the Pet Lodge project (2017 - 2018) demonstrates that no uncertainty needed to be established. Logically, if there is uncertainty as to the district boundary line, how would you extend the requirements of the district a distance not exceeding 100 feet? 100 feet from what? Quite evidently, this was a mistake made in the reorganization of the Zoning Ordinance text. There is insufficient basis and a complete lack of precedent for denying the application of this clause due to a lack of established uncertainty. I cannot now apply this qualifying condition in a knowingly inconsistent manner. The practical effect of such an interpretation would invalidate every zoning and building application that has used this clause since October of 2012. Since 1997, the Zoning Map has contained parcel boundary level detail. There is very little dispute as to the district boundary location(s). District boundaries are drawn to coincide with parcel boundaries. Where a district boundary “splits” a parcel, the split is or was intentional. So, why was the change made in 1989 – 1990 from this: “Where a district boundary divides a lot in ownership of record at the time of enactment of this chapter…” To this: “Where a district boundary line, as appearing on the Zoning Map, divides a lot or land in single ownership as existing at the time of this enactment…” Was it intended to clarify the condition, or was it intended to be inclusive of properties consisting of multiple parcels that were under single ownership? I have found no record of justification for this change. It wasn’t even identified as a proposed “change”. It is likely this was intended to be a clarification, and meant to incorporate the scenario where multiple lots are combined on one deed, and intended to be viewed as a single lot of record. It would also apply in the situation when a property owner has acquired multiple contiguous substandard lots or the original lot plus a paper street. What this clause was never meant to include was 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. If the authors had anticipated this clause being used to attempt to evade future variances through strategic acquisition, more detailed and limiting conditions would certainly have been incorporated.