HomeMy WebLinkAbout20221034 Marion Avenue Interpretation Public Comment April 25, 2023
Deborah LaCombe-Garrelts
Girard Garrelts
11 Marion Avenue
Saratoga Springs, NY
Zoning Board of Appeals
Application #20221034- Marion Ave Zoning Sect 1.7 Interpretation Appeal
Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals,
With regards to the appeal by our homeowner's association representative, John lacoponi, and in regard
to the Sept 12, 2022 interpretation from the City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Officer, Patrick Cogan about
the proposed expansion of commercial enterprises on Marion Ave.
We are homeowners living adjacent to land owned by Stewart's Corporation on Marion Avenue.
We have lived in our home there since 1983. The proposed expansion of commercial business into a
residential lot to the north of the present TRB zoned district directly impacts our home and our lives.
At the ZBA meeting on April 24th, Lawyer for the city in the first breath stated that the ZBA's duty at hand
was strictly to interpret the zoning ordinance 1.7; then in the next breath, he made mention of"many"
precedents to consider. We object strongly to that undue influence on your decision making process.
Ms. Coreno, lawyer for Stewart's Shops Corp. cites Wen Mei Lu v City of Saratoga Springs as a
precedential decision.
Precedents which Ms. Coreno cites, are those litigated decisions where requests for variances were
actually applied for. Where an area or use variance is applied for, Gen. City Law section 81-B and Otto
rules must be considered.
In Wen Mei Lu v City of Saratoga Springs, applicant applied for a use variance for an entry road to the
pet boarding facility. They concurrently applied for area variances to allow a driveway or access road to
the proposed pet boarding in a TRB zoned plot adjacent to RR zone plots in common ownership. The
ZBA determined that the existing building envelopment was too small to construct a usable building and
there were no feasible means to expand the property through land acquisition or other alternatives.
On review of these facts about said properties, the zoning boundaries of the parcels WERE in fact
uncertain, being too small to build on separately, and which predated the current zoning codes.
The court decision found (1) that the property owner could elect to extend the district into the remaining
portion of the property and no use variance was required. The court also held that (2) the parcel was
surrounded by other commercial establishments and would not produce an undesirable change in the
character of the neighborhood, and (3) after reviewing letters from other pet lodge kennels, there would
not be excess noise, smell, or the presence of loose dogs.
Although the court decision found (1) no use variance was required due to 1.7D; it also defends the ZBA
decision by citing Otto rules, and specifically addresses the neighbors concerns for noise, smell,
presence of loose dogs.
Stewart's assertion that section 1.7D can stand alone as a substantial zoning statement to benefit them
is false because they acknowledge there is no uncertainty as to the zoning boundary lines. Each of the
sub statements A-D are not stand-alone applications of the zoning ordinance. They are conditional upon
the first statement being true.
The ZBA must require an application for Area and/or Use Variances to substantiate its duty to protect the
citizens of Saratoga Springs, and to allow this board to do their due diligence to afford maximum
protection of residential areas, to assure that all projects be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan,
to allow for appropriate public comment, and to apply Gen. City law section 81-B and the Otto rules test.
To not require variance applications would be irrational, would be an overreach, and create a precedent
that should not be set.
Otto Rules:
Stewart's, in not applying for a use variance or area variance for expansion 100 feet into residential
property did not attempt to meet the Otto rules for demonstrating an unnecessary hardship, or that they
have attempted to meet the following rules:
• Stewart's corp. has not proven the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return for each
and every use allowable in that zone.
Stewart's can keep to their current footprint within the TRB and have a successful business without
expansion into a residential lot. They have never tried, therefore cannot prove, that they cannot realize a
reasonable return for the allowable uses on the residential lot.
• Stewart's corp. has not proven that an alleged hardship relating to the property in question is a
unique circumstance that does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood
itself.
The neighborhood is residential, with mostly single family homes. It is zoned as such with the exception
of the gas station, car wash, and ATM.
• Stewart's has not and cannot prove that the use to be authorized by a use or area variance will
not alter the essential character of the locality.
Stewart's proposed plan is to create not only a much larger Stewart's shop, but also a separate building
for two rental retail establishments and relocate the car wash closer to the city's water supply and in a
conservation zone. The resulting noise and light pollution; garbage and litter; and traffic turning into and
coming out of the resulting commercial complex will negatively impact the residents safety and
enjoyment of their homes. Doubling or tripling the commercial businesses on Marion Avenue will create a
hugely negative impact on the neighborhood and its residents and change the residential nature of the
district itself.
• Stewart's has not proven that the benefit sought cannot be achieved by some method feasible
to pursue, other than an area or use variance.
• Stewart's has not attempted to submit a smaller scale project keeping within the present
footprint.
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:
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 centerline 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.
By using basic logic, the statement: 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: We read
this statement as a conditional statement or premise and Where there is uncertainty as to the
boundary of any district contained within this Chapter or as shown on City maps is the antecedent
to sub-statements A-D which are the consequences which shall apply.
Mr. Cogan stated in his revised opinion that his original ruling was not adequately defensible.
We believe that ruling to be in error, and are asking the ZBA to overturn that ruling.
It is our opinion that Mr. Cogan's original ruling is defensible and correct because:
• The way that Section 1.7 is written is not ambiguous, it is in "plain language" and easily
understood to be a conditional set of circumstances.
• Stewart's Corp. have not attempted to follow the rules of application to the zoning board of
appeals, and have denied the citizens of Saratoga Springs their due process.
We ask the Zoning Board of Appeals to enforce Section 1.7 in its entirety, and to require that Stewart's
submit an application for a use or area variance for the 100 foot in question. Thank you very much.
Deborah LaCombe-Garrelts and Girard Garrelts
Residents& Homeowners
11 Marion Avenue