Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230161 8 Taylor Shed Public Comment Buydos 25/4/23, 3:41 PM Zimbra https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=13516&tz=America/New_York 1/2 From :noreply@civicplus.com Subject :Online Form Submittal: Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment To :julia destino <julia.destino@saratoga-springs.org>, aneisha samuels <aneisha.samuels@saratoga- springs.org>, susanna combs <susanna.combs@saratoga-springs.org> Zimbra julia.destino@saratoga-springs.org Online Form Submittal: Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment Thu, May 04, 2023 01:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links. Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment SUBMIT COMMENTS REGARDING CITY PROJECTS Thank you for submitting your comments. Your feedback will be forwarded to the City's Planning Department and Land Use Board members. NOTE: Comments submitted later than 12:00 noon on the day before the Land Use Board meeting may not be reviewed prior to their meeting. All comments will be added to the project file in the Planning Department. Land Use Board Zoning Board of Appeals Name James R Buydos Email Address jbuydos@nycap.rr.com Business Name Field not completed. Address 6 Taylor Street City SARATOGA SPGS State NY Zip Code 12866 Phone Number 5188840111 Project Name 8 Taylor Shed Project Number 20230161 Project Address 8 Taylor Street Saratoga Springs NY 12866 5/4/23, 3:41 PM Zimbra https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=13516&tz=America/New_York 2/2 Comments Attached a re additional public comments RE: project # 20230161 thank you. Attach Photo (optional)ZBA_board_letter.pdf Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Dear ZBA Board: I’d like to reach out RE: the meeƟng on 4/24/2023 on the 8 Taylor Steet SHED area variance request (project # 20230161) as part of the public comment process. I am the opposing neighbor at 6 Taylor Street (directly next door). I would like to point out or refute some of the comments that were made by the applicants, and address how we got to where we are here today (as was asked by one of the board members and I do not believe she got a complete answer). Three minutes was not enough for myself to explain all of this in person. I would like the board to know and understand that I thought long and hard about this decision to pursue denial for the area variance and taking legal ac Ɵon to contravene my neighbors disdain for the law. AcƟons speak louder than words, and the applicant s’ acƟons are consistently to deceive but sƟll claim vicƟmhood. The applicants moved into the property in June of 2017. They subsequently erected a fence (which has since been modified illegally) and subsequent landscaping in the back yard (including not applying for necessary variances for their shed, pergola, and paƟo). As far as I can see, their lot is only 26’ +/- deep from the back of the house, not allowing for a paƟo or deck at all. While doing all of this work I was more than welcoming to them as new neighbors. All through this Ɵme and the enƟre first FOUR YEARS the Critelli’s knew and allowed me to maintain the odd 500 sq. Ō. porƟon of their land on my side of the fence (mowing, watering, ferƟlizing, EOY cleanup and raking etc.). Notably, that 500 sq. Ō. porƟon of land was originally part of my lot when the original developer sought approval for the subdivision. It was switched in between the Ɵme that I put down my lot hold deposit(s) and the Ɵme I went to actual contract. SomeƟme during that period the developer changed the configuraƟon of the lots, presumably at the City’s request so that what is now the Critelli’s lot could meet the minimum size requirements. I did not know that the 500 sq. Ō. porƟon of land was not mine unƟl aŌer the Critelli’s moved in and surveyed the land (See aƩached maps). At the Ɵme it was not a big deal, because there was no fence/gate there, yet. And the previous two owners never went near it (nor did I think they knew where the lines were either). When they decided to erect a fence, it’s odd that they did not fence in their enƟre back yard. According to them, they wanted to give me a “clear line of site”, however this was rebuffed in several heated back yard discussions when Gary Critelli complained more than once “it would have been a lot more money to fence in the enƟre yard”. And that “great fences make great neighbors” which I could not disagree more with. What makes great neighbors is usually conversaƟon and understanding. Anyway, we now know they did not fence in the enƟre back yard, because of the cost (deceit #1). In addiƟon to not fencing in the enƟre back yard, they elected to install a gate (opening outward onto my property illegally) so they could presumably access this part of their yard. If you looked at it in person, because of the odd abutment of the two adjoining properƟes, it looks as though Critelli’s fence gate is in the middle of my backyard (and I will reiterate we have encouraged board members to come and look themselves). Although Critelli’s acƟons were unusual, I thought to myself, well this isn’t the best situaƟon, but wasn’t annoyed enough (yet) to make it into a formal dispute. They would occasionally come thru the gate a few Ɵmes a year for gardening purposes. Like I stated previously, everything was cordial and civil for FOUR YEARS (or at least I thought so). On Mother’s Day 2021 (aŌer a long delay from being able to visit with my family because of Covid 19) I was back on my back porch aŌer a nice Mother’s Day brunch – reflecƟng on my parents and minding my own business as I normally do. And Gary and Laurie Critelli were franƟcally running up and down the property line (on my side of fence, on my property) with a metal detector (apparently aŌer discovering that a sprinkler head of mine was on their property by a mere 2’). They then approached me and told me that they wanted a leƩer signed (again aŌer four years of no issues) staƟng that they give me “permission” to mow and water their lawn. My immediate response was geƫng me a copy of what you want signed, and that I would have my aƩorney look at it (as I do with anything I’m asked to sign). I also stated emphaƟcally at the Ɵme that there was no reason for the leƩer, they had a deed and a survey and knew where the lines are drawn. Both aƩorneys that I consulted said the leƩer was meaningless and if we wanted to get something in wriƟng, then to look at a use variance. I have consulted several aƩorneys and all have come to the same conclusion, that the leƩer was wriƩen and requested by the Critelli’s to refute any potenƟal future acƟon for adverse possession (deceit # 2). The Critelli’s then requested a meeƟng out in the back yard. They suggested that they just noƟfy me via “a text message” anyƟme they were going to come thru the gate. They never honored that suggesƟon even once. They then subsequently stated they would be maintaining the yard on my side of the fence moving forward. They also requested I remove a sprinkler head, and repeatedly threatened to remove it themselves by cuƫng the lines – even though they knew I was away for the summer that year. This would have resulted in a massive destrucƟon of property and a huge water bill. This could have also been very dangerous to other neighbors. In addiƟon, the Critelli’s installed a 3’ x 2’ “spite fence” that again looks as though it is in the middle of my back yard (see pic aƩached). How would you like to have to explain that every Ɵme you had someone new come visit your home? (hint: you wouldn’t). The Critelli’s claimed at the board meeƟng that “I’m trying to take their land”. This is just simply untrue (deceit # 3). One of the first soluƟons I proposed was to put a shed in front of where they installed their gate. That way it would block my view of the gate and I would run a new fence down the side of the property from the north east corner of the shed to the rear of the property. To my uƩer disbelief the Critelli’s said the only way they would have approved of that is if I met the “required setbacks” even though the Critelli’s have constructed mulƟple structures on their property in violaƟon of the setbacks. I was like, completely stunned. Again, the rules simply don’t apply to them. Like any good aƩorney, my original aƩorney(s) looked into the “adverse possession” clause with relaƟve ease and limited research, so the Critelli’s could have figured out long ago (or even before they started bullying me for that signed leƩer) that this was not even an opƟon for me to pursue due to the change in law in 2008. I have offered other reasonable soluƟons as well, ones that do not change any amount of the total square footage that the Critelli’s would retain, or what is called “net neutral” lot line adjustments. Every soluƟon is rebuffed with a flat outright no and basically telling me to go pound salt. The Critelli’s stated in their applicaƟon on page #6 of the pending variance applicaƟon item #1, that “they couldn’t get heavy equipment in to move the shed”. What they failed to menƟon to the board was the shed was iniƟally installed uƟlizing the neighbor’s driveway (4 Richard Ave.) for installaƟon (deceit #4) so, there is plenty of room. They also state in item # 2 on page # 6 that “there is minimal visibility for anyone in the neighborhood”. That must mean that I do not exist because I have straight line of site to the shed from my rear screened in porch. Page # 7 item # 3 where the Critelli’s again state another falsehood by staƟng “the only neighbor who can see the shed agreed to the placement” (deceit #5). I would imagine flat out lies on an official government applicaƟon would be cause for immediate rejecƟon of the applicaƟon. It was also stated at the ZBA meeƟng by Laurie Critelli that the permeable porƟon of their lot was at or exceeded 50%. A simple look at Google maps and the exisƟng structures and a liƩle basic math, puts them more at around 30% (deceit #6). The Critellis also claimed at the meeƟng that this soluƟon does not affect drainage. The area they installed their shed drains towards my property. Gary Critelli also installed a drain pipe that goes underground and directs storm water runoff from his house guƩers onto the 500 sq. Ō. plot of land that’s been aforemenƟoned. Mainly during spring the drain pipe along with the addiƟonal run-off from their illegal paƟo and illegal shed causes runoff during the rainy season (deceit #7). Lastly their applicaƟon stated certain areas of the paƟo are for “walking only” and that there was a retaining wall. These are false statements as well, that can be determined from the photos they provided (deceit #8, 9). Their applicaƟon has more holes than Swiss cheese in it. I addiƟon there are other non-related issues I have with the Critelli’s but for now I will not digress at this Ɵme to avoid any addiƟonal public discourse. I will not however be painted somehow as the neighborhood villain as was aƩempted at the board meeƟng the last week. I did a substanƟal addiƟon on my property in 2013 and followed all the normal city protoco ls and permiƫng, inspecƟons, etc. Everyone should follow local laws and ordinances and that is why we have these laws in place to begin with. Their answer is to submit a fraudulent applicaƟon to the city and claim they are vicƟms. So I’m really at a loss as to what it is about me that bothers these parƟcular neighbors so much. And if that is the case why they wouldn’t like to work on a soluƟon together so they are not in my back yard mowing once a week for the enƟre summer? I mean if you can’t stand me, then why do you seem to want to see me more? If I am not successful with a resoluƟon with the Critelli’s I will then be forced (again because where they decided to place a gate) to redo my enƟre rear yard. This will result in yet another applicaƟon for a variance from the city for a new paƟo and/or a shed needed at my residence. The placement of the gate and the way Critellis installed their gate have created a situaƟon where there is no privacy for my own use of my own back yard. Denying an area variance for the paƟo at 8 Taylor St. and having it removed would certainly give me A LOT more privacy. So, in conclusion I hope that answers the quesƟon why the Critellis are before the board and why I am refuƟng their requests for variances. If the situaƟon were reversed, I would have reached out and asked to sit down over a beer to see if we could come to a reasonable/workable soluƟon that works for both parƟes. That would be the neighborly thing to do. Instead Critellis have escalated the issue at every turn possible and aƩempted to make me look like the bad guy at a public forum. We have aƩempted to resolve on our end many Ɵmes with no apparent appeƟte from the Critellis to do so. Lastly, I would like to menƟon I too am a longƟme resident of both the city of Saratoga Springs (15 years) and Saratoga County (for my enƟre life) with a known family history of community and lawful peaceful coexistence. I have had two different neighbors on both sides of me (four families in total) over a fiŌeen-year period. I got along with all of them with no problem. Thank you for taking the Ɵme to read my comments. Sincerely, James R. Buydos