HomeMy WebLinkAbout31-33 Marion Ave Zoning DeterminationPage | 1
May 16, 2022
Zoning Board of Appeals
Application # 20220202
31 – 33 Marion Avenue – Stewart’s Shops
Parcels #: 166.5-4-1.1, 166.5-4-1.2, 166.5-4-1.3
RE: City Zoning Ordinance §240-1.7(D)
Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals,
As requested, I have examined the application submitted by Stewart’s Shops for the proposed redevelopment
of 31 – 33 Marion Ave. Per the applicant’s narrative, a portion of the adjoining parcel (166.5-4-1.1) has been
“incorporated into the proposal via 1.7(D) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance which extends zoning 100 feet.”
Correspondence received from neighbors and the Maple Ave, Marion Ave, Maple Dell Neighborhood
Association has raised objections and questioned the validity of utilizing §240-1.7(D) as it applies to the
property in question. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) has requested a determination and clarification of
whether Section 1.7(D) can be utilized by the applicant to extend the requirements of the Tourist Related
Business (TRB) zoning district 100 feet to the north into parcel 166.5-4-1.1, which is part of the Urban
Residential – 2 (UR-2) zoning district. The Zoning Map boundary between the TRB and UR-2 zoning
districts is clearly coincident with the parcel boundary between parcels # 166.5-4-1.1 and 166.5-4-1.3.
§240-1.7 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance reads as follows:
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.
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
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.
The neighborhood association suggests that Section 1.7(D) can only be used “where there is uncertainty as to
the boundary of any district”. In this case, there is no uncertainty as to where the boundary between the TRB
and UR-2 districts is located, so the suggested implication would be that 1.7(D) cannot be used without such
uncertainty. Following the logical and literal construction of Section 1.7, I find it difficult to disagree.
However, after thoroughly researching the history of the language, and examining the text of every iteration of
the Zoning Ordinance since 1961, my determination is that clause 1.7(D) was grouped under Section 1.7 as a
result of a formatting error in 2012, and was never intended to only apply in situations “where there is
uncertainty as to the boundary”. The clause dealing with “Lots in two districts” was under a separate heading
from 1961 – 2012. Logically, placing the clause under Section 1.7 doesn’t make sense. If there is uncertainty
as to the exact boundary between districts, how can the requirements be construed to extend up to 100 feet?
Where would the 100 feet be measured from?
There is plenty of established precedent that the City has never required an applicant to demonstrate
uncertainty in order to utilize the 100 foot move. Additional information can be found in my attached
research notes titled “Zoning Notes – Split Zoned Lots”.
So if uncertainty as to the boundary location need not be established, the question remains as to whether
Section 1.7(D) can be used by the applicant to incorporate 100 feet of parcel 166.5-4-1.1 into the project,
construing the requirements of the TRB district 100 feet to the north of the district boundary line. To answer
that question, I believe it is necessary to establish when said boundary line was drawn, and whether or not the
land divided by the boundary was under single ownership “at the time of this enactment”.
I examined every known and published version of the Zoning Map since 1961. An outline of my findings is
contained in the attached research notes titled “Marion Ave Zoning Map Notes”. I intend to bolster these
notes with corresponding images of the referenced map versions if necessary. My conclusion is that the
boundary between the commercial zoning district (TRB, TRBD, C-3) and the residential zoning district has
been in the same location, coincident with the parcel boundary between 166.5-4.1.1 and 166.5-4-1.3 since at
least 1998, and in all likelihood, since 1991. Property records show that Stewarts Shops Corp acquired parcel
166.5-4-1.3 from Marion Ave Car Wash in 2003. Stewarts Shops Corp acquired parcel 166.5-4-1.1 from
Congress Gas and Oil in 2004. So when the district boundary was established, it was exactly coincident with
the parcel boundary, the parcels were not under single ownership, and were not owned by Stewart’s Shops.
The heart of the issue is whether or not a commercial use such as a car wash should be allowed to expand 100
feet into a parcel clearly zoned for residential use. In 1976, when the car wash was originally authorized on
what is now parcel 166.5-4-1.3, the use required a special permit in the B-3 zoning district. Special Permits
were evaluated by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1976. A carwash use in the TRB zoning district would
require Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval, now conducted by the Planning Board. Attached is the
special permit granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1976, providing the original authorization for the
construction of the car wash. As you can see, the following condition of approval left no doubt as to the
ZBA’s opinion in this matter:
“The Board points out that the balance of Congress Gas & Oil property to the north is considered to be
residential in character and the Board at this time disapproves further business expansion north of the subject
property.”
Page | 3
For the reasons stated herein, it is my determination that it would be inconsistent with the language and intent
of the Zoning Ordinance to allow Stewart’s Shops to extend the requirements of the TRB district 100 feet to
the north into parcel 166.5-4-1.1, which is wholly within the UR-2 district.
I respectfully reserve the right to amend and augment the information contained in this letter and supporting
documents if necessary, or in the event of an interpretation appeal.
Please let me know if any additional information is required or if clarification is requested on this or any other
issue.
Respectfully,
Patrick D. Cogan
Zoning and Building Inspector