The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20190171 Agius Properties Correspondance (2) Attention ZBA members: July 18, Z:^ °' Ref: Project#20190171 �� 8o /1 James and Patricia Aeus/Area Variance JUL ? 8 70�� 11 ZBA Public Hearing July 22, 2019 My name is Richard K. Galarneau and I reside at 58 Arrowhead Road, Saratoga Springs NY with my wife Denise L. Galarneau On Saturday,July 13th I received a notification letter from attorney Michael Toohey stating that our neighbors Jim & Pat Agius have requested an area variance associated with a proposed 3-lot subdivision from the City of Saratoga Springs with a public hearing before the ZBA. Denise and I own the property that borders Jim and Pats property, both to the north and to the west. was expecting this Variance Notification letter as had spoken to Jim and Pat previously and they made me aware of their plan (without specific details) to request a 3-lot subdivision. I also spoke to Dan Wheeler, the surveyor,when I saw him on the Agius property and in fact offered and provided Dan with my personal property surveys and shared with Dan my knowledge of the adjoining properties along with their property's corner pins and property line locations to the best of my knowledge. I had previously asked Dan Wheeler for a copy of the proposed 3-lot subdivision. Dan was unable to give me one without permission from the Ag|us's. I then asked Pat Agius for a copy and she said she would have Jim drop one off for my review but that did not happen. I mention this because I want it known that it was just this past Monday when I saw the proposed 3-lot subdivision map for the 1st time when I visited Jen Merriman at city hall to get a copy of the requested variance details and to see the proposed 3-lot subdivision map. I was unable to access this information on line with the link provided in Mr. Toohey's notification Letter. In reviewing the letter,Jen appeared to understand why I was unable to gain access. (something about the old way vs.the new way?) In my review of this map in Jen Merriman's office, it instantly became obvious to me for the 1u time that, if allowed, the newly configured lot lines shown in this 3-lot subdivision could very possibly eliminate our current view of Saratoga Lake. Tuesday, I spent time in the Saratoga County Clerk's office doing research so that 1 could be as accurate as possible in my response to this variance request and because Pat Agius had informed me that Mike Toohey was going to ask me to sign a statement as to my memory of the construction of the building that is up for discussion today and in need of a variance. A building built by Joseph Mutinsky. To satisfy Mike Toohey and the ZBA, here is the background on the building in question as I believe to be true and why, I believe we are here today. I believe this variance request essentially is to "right a wrong" that was allowed to happen sometime shortly after February 15th 1969,the date Joseph Mutinsky and his wife Catherine purchased property from James T. Mc Cormick and his wife Bizabeth, known as Tax Map Parcel No 192.12'1'36. (This is the lot that today is up for discussion and consideration for granting a variance) Shortly after the Mutinsky's purchase (my recollection is within a year or two)Joseph and Catherine Mutinsky unlawfully constructed a two-story garage/residence only a couple of feet from the property line separating his new property from the property belonging to my father Lucien Galarneau Sr. 1 waonly around 14 or 15 years old at the time. The property purchased by Mr. Mutinsky, from James Mc Cormick included a small ranch-style home. When Mr. Mc Cormick passed away. His surviving wife decided to sell the property to Joe Mutinsky. It was believed by the neighbors that the new owner, Mr. Mutinsky was a retired union carpenter. I recall a day when my dad told me that Mr. Mutinsky had mentioned to him a desire to build "a garage' as the Mc Cormick home he purchased did not have one. At this time my dad's property was our summer camp and sometimes the place we visited on weekends; it was not our permanent residence. My dad owned a home in Schenectady and worked for General Electric. We only came to Saratoga when we could. I recall my father being upset when upon returning to his property after being away for some time "The Garage"that Joe Mutinsky had mentioned had come to fruition. With Joe's background H construction, he had built a two-story barn style building with two garage bays on the ground level with an enclosed staircase entrance to the 2'floor. The upper level was Joe Mutinsky's new full-time residence and it occupied the entire 2"u floor.To add to my father's disapproval was the fact that Joe had built this building with its foundation located only 7' or 8' from our property line and that the 2"u floor of the building cantilevered even closer yet. This bothered my dad greatly; I know because he mentioned it to me often. Because of this, when I eventually purchased the property from my dad in 1985'one of the 2st things I did was build an outbuilding (shed) directly in front of Joe Mutinsky's building so that when looking in that direction we (my family, my dad and I),would see"Our" structure, not Joe's. When Mr. Mutinsky decided to sell, we heard that he was having difficulty finding a buyer because apparently, he never applied for or was granted a building permit for his building and therefore never had any inspections and therefore was never given a Certificate of Occupancy from the City of Saratoga Springs. Interested buyers apparently were unable to get bank financing without a Certificate of Occupancy making it necessary to find a buyer that was not only able to, but also willing to pay cash, is what we heard. Joe Mutinsky eventually found a buyer and the property was sold. In time this property sold again and then finally sold once again to Jim & Pat Agius. Without a Certificate of Occupancy ever being issued I assume Jim and Pat had paid cash as did all the previous purchasers. | also assume that Jim & Pat were aware of the "No C.O. lssued^ situation and decided to go ahead with the purchase anyway? This brings me to variance request and my thoughts &concerns on the matter. First, let there be no question, Denise and I like Jim and Pat. They have been good neighbors and we get along just fine. No issues here. We know jim Pat want to sell this (their income property) as they approach retirement with plans to move South.This property is not their residence. Their residence is located on the other side of Saratoga Lake on Route 9P. We wish them the best in retirement and can appreciate the fact that they want to get the highest price possible from the sale of this property and that it is their belief that subdividing their property into three individual parcels gives them the best opportunity to find three individual buyers instead of just one or two. Our concern is simple. This variance and subdivision, if granted, will most certainly interfere with our, and our family's, peaceful enjoyment of our property by drastically increasing the likelihood that our view of Saratoga Lake will be reduced or completely eliminated. By granting this variance and 3-lot subdivision you are allowing for 3 separate owners to define their newly developed property lines in any manor they wish, as it should be (for the new owners). How does a property owner typically distinguish their property lines? By installing fencing or shrubs or trees. Will these new owners want to add a shed or two or perhaps build a garage? The loss of our view of the lake(a view that is already limited) will drastically ' act the va/ue of our property negatively as well as impacting our day to day enjoyment of our property. I am asking the Zoning board to leave the current lot configurations"as is." If the buildings numbered and known as 7 &9 Tomahawk Lane were to remain as one lot and be sold as one parcel (with its current property lines) a new owner of this parcel, with both buildings would have an income property, a decent size yard and a 2 car garage with no need for additional fencing, shrubs or buildings to potentially block or limit our view of the Lake. The property known as#11 Tomahawk Ln., if property lines remain unchanged would, in all likelihood remain status Quo, as it already has an existing year round residence with an outstanding lake view, again leaving our view"as is." Jim and Pat purchased their properties knowing what they were purchasing. Granting their requests will not improve the neighborhood in any way, in fact this variance and subdivision, if granted, will only have a negative impact on the neighborhood. It will negatively affect us in our enjoyment of our property and in our property values. It's affects will be ^forever" having an impact not only on my wife and I today, but also on our family, both present and future. Please take the time to come to the properties in question to arrive at your own conclusions. I don't be|ievethatanyone' indud|rgenyofthecurrentZBAboardmennbers, vvou|dsitstUlanda||owv"your° view of the lake to be blocked or diminished if you were indeed in this same position. My wife and I purchased our property knowing the view that it provided and knowing the configuration of the lots surrounding us. Why should these lot configurations be allowed to change now? Please take the time to sit on my patio and inside my screen porch to draw your own opinions. Upon your visit (and I sure hope you do take the time to visit) please take note of the proposed 10' lake access easement as designated on Dan Wheelers proposed subdivision map along the southern property line. See if you agree with me that this does not represent reasonable access to the lake. As Jim & Pat head out of town to e ' their retirement, never to return, I see, in their rear-view mirror, the landscaper's trucks with shrubs and trees,the fence companies and shed delivery trucks quickly approaching these newly configured properties. In closing: This has been a very difficult letter to write.Joe Mutinsky, back around 1969/1970 caused this problem and I resent being in this position today as a result of his actions. I'm sure the Agius will not be happy with my objections. However, the fact remains that My family and I have a lot to lose here so | must object to this request. My dad purchased his property here overlooking Saratoga Lake as our family's summer camp in 1956 when I was just one year old. My wife and I then purchased it from him in the 1980's and then we purchased an additional adjoining Arrowhead Road property in 1999 where my wife and I currently reside. We are deeply rooted here in Saratoga with no intensions to sell and retire elsewhere, in fact our youngest daughter(now in her 40's) has many times expressed her interest in keeping our homestead in the family. Thank you for your time and consideration. Question: If the board decides to grant this variance and subdivision, can a provision be made as a deed restriction perhaps,with some wording as to the purchasers' agreement to not block or diminish our view by way of trees, shrubs, fences, structures or any other means? If so...for this, we would be forever grateful. Richard K. Galarneai Denise L. Galarneau i .i\* ,,N, "N%,,,,, %cb 'P err f(C,f, rfiio WO e?,i.0 go • de?st:31'It aC)\--c" :... -(xi 64 19.41/44 (:*:..7 , C C 'Pti. '''%.***.s.% r.i , ...r. of, C64,,, 4 o rn it A ict IA./ k Lfr, , � 'fir 2.3. � ` 40.:) b1.1444--68 100 142 142-- '____ -kill ..\-a, 7 0 . i I , 5 Na6 1.5 ' 24';7821 — _._.._ - 65 - fir �- _ �. 63\ .4 i a , c,--, / LV r0 / ft) f j / Cat I i AZ C4 / =-4 *-- 1., I / ° -4 IN) i \ i.44 /6 INZ---, , -IN) ,4 \ON\ 011' cyl i -,..... .s.\ 04 i CO /36) . (-) c_71-CO 6,5 - ------ .,,,.\, / ii::, - 53 -.5 ,(in \'' '. T)c;;') '12‘1) / 1,1' - ;\,C) / *. ‘#) ...._.. , c;\ (c_ii . _ _ v ,.....c, -6'9 — ______j Ud,AN,\ 0 V r,) ...:1- L11/4,,S.j. l'' ti 6 i ' - . -A. ,. /7\ 8/ 4 5 , % -4 cb riI., N) .\,•<. f , .,› / —N.'''''-'1 -' ----------7---t 9' u.5. (--!: --.4 '' _ 0.,, xi Cx.1 (7,_\ N..) ,,S,N,\ '6) L,o ...rsi j> 7,rz-, Bf -2/7.... rN.) . ' /:,,,-1 \,... ,), cit c-, 6 0 c. 1,\''',\ .,,,t'' -0 1,, ',4 (n'''''N\\c-r) ' . ' , (6\1 ,Q. /.cr ,o — CO AN\ 1 5 e -A 0 , ,1/4.p .,) 0 ( ,-% ci> yrs '-' ,-ti\ 'D' :. '6'7, y cc) k 0 .,--__:-\ \z-, / / .,-\ S. //I/ '>0 Cr) ,/,/ L 1 O cl i \,, .. '(.14 A.) , . ro , cv ›0, ,,,, ..., 0 ,r‘) ..3:' \''...) , , .. / ,_-...\ /6:5‘ / C)4° 0 f> 44 vti ////C C> -OD \ Q) ,› ...,,, 0) 0 ,r,f •"\ 9 s 1/1) ,>„, c,',) *--N1 ,c,.,‘,, i k. I \f, ...,_.. 1.). ,N, \ i..— , .,>, 0 0 0 i-- ii'\ c;' — r., it r)17, Fled 0, v \.... ._..... 0 1\. \ it- ' (-,$) • cb .; , 601 i, Pw r .\-- ,5' 6-' - V 0 ,5" v s 0 . .4,5 '‘,rb 0 .• ,( t /40,,, 7 , giockC ac-h"-- 7:4,AVAP"344acZ Aia ,,,,,/ / /- 1 1 kP ,F77 A • 0- / I e v 0 Z:e;,-. del\ 71.1 r.1 21 b LOT 1 7 c . . ii, \-i- , LOT 2 tjekP) r ., --iki 5 li p,„IA co„ i,. ,,,,e,_ _vl .,...E.H...- 1 reitl -11.,0) .''' rJ.4.11„, it-v ‘''' FAA'iiiAF PA IP.C.t7 ha $ '-)c \\ \ \L \J LOT 3 Jos.` SARATOGA LAKE SARATOGA LAKE EXISTING PARCEL CONFIGURATION PROPOSED PARCEL CONFIGURATION NOT TO SC ALE NOT