HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230335 9 Clark Zoning Interpretation Application FERRADINO
BUSINESS&LEGAL
"' STRATEGY
FERRADINO FIRM, PLLC
Stephanie W. Ferradino, Esq. • stef@ferradinofirm.com
May 11, 2023
Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals Via Hand Delivery and Electronic
Attn:Aneisha Samuels Submission
City Hall—474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
Re: 9 Clark Street
Dear Aneisha:
Enclosed please find the following documents related to the submission of an application for an area
variance on the above-mentioned property to the Zoning Board of Appeals:
1. Completed and executed application;
2. Narrative to application;
3. Photos of property;
4. SEQR short form; and
5. Check for$700 for the application fee.
Please note that no survey has been provided as the issue relates to an interpretation rather than
dimensional relief. Under separate cover, I have provided an electronic version of this application for
dissemination and publication on the city's website. Kindly advise if any further information would be of
assistance to the board in reviewing this submission.
Please add this application to the next available Zoning Board of Appeals' meeting agenda and advise
when notifications are to be made. Thank you for your help and assistance in getting this matter before the
ZBA.
Very truly yours,
Stephanie W. Ferradino
Enc.
63 Putnam Street, Suite 202 Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
(518) 260-1229 • www.ferradinofirm.com
ZDNING BOARD DFAPPEALSAPPLIC.4TIDN FORM PAGE B
DISCLOSURE
Does any City officer,employee,or family member thereof have a financial interest(as defined by General Municipal Law Section 809)in
this application? m No ❑Yes If"yes",a statement disclosing the name,residence and nature and extent of this interest must be filed
with this application.
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
Uwe,the property owner(s),or purchaser(s)/lessee(s)under contract,of the land in question, hereby request an appearance before
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
By the signature(s)attached hereto, I/we certify that the information provided within this application and accompanying
documentation is,to the best of my/our knowledge,true and accurate. I/we further understand that intentionally providing false or
misleading information is grounds for immediate denial of this application.
Furthermore, I/we hereby authorize the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals and designated City staff to enter the property
associated with this application for purposes of conducting any necessary site inspections relating to this appeal.
Date:
X
`J
app icant n ture)
Date:
(applicant signature)
If applicant is not the currently the owner of the property, the current owner must also sign.
Owner Signature: Date:
Owner Signature: Date:
Revised 01/2021
—HANDWRITTEN APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED" [FOR OFFICE USEI
G' % CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS (Application#)
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY (Date received)
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866-2296
TEL: 518-587-3550 X2533
hC04p°RAtEo `9ly www.saratoga-springs.org (Project Title)
APPLICATION FOR: Check if PH Required ❑
INTERPRETATION, USE VARIANCE,
AREA VARIANCE AND/OR VARIANCE EXTENSION Staff Review
APPLICANT(S)� OWNER(S)(lfnotapplicant� ATTORNEY/AGENT
Name MARK STRAUS STEPHANIE FERRADINO
Address 15 King Road 63 PUTNAM ST.,SUITE 202
MIDDLE GROVE, NY 12850 SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866
Phone 518-857-2238 / / 518-260-1229 /
Email MARKSTRAUS@AOL.COM STEF@FERRADINOFIRM.COM
Primary Contact Person: Applicant Owner Attorney/Agent
An applicant must be the property owner, lessee,or one with an option to lease or purchase the property in question.
Applicant's interest in the premises: m Owner ❑ Lessee ❑ Under option to lease or purchase
PROPERTY INFORMATION
9 CLARK STREET 165.84 1 79
1. Property Address/Location: Tax Parcel No.: - -
(for example: 165.52—4—37)
SEPT 2019 UR-3
2. Date acquired by current owner: 3.Zoning District when purchased:
MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UR-3
4. Present use of property: 5. Current Zoning District:
6. Has a previous ZBA application/appeal been filed for this property?
m Yes(when? 1982, 1QR� For what?VARIANCE r)R 41H )
❑ No UNIT-GRANTED 1983
7. Is property located within(check all that apply)?: ❑ Historic District ❑Architectural Review District
0 500'of a State Park,city boundary,or county/state highway?
8. Brief description of proposed action:
INTERPRETATION OF 1973 ZONING CODE AND VARIANCE; IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, VARIANCE TO ALLOW 4TH UNIT
9. Is there an active written violation for this parcel? 16 Yes ❑ No
10. Has the work, use or occupancy to which this appeal relates already begun? 21 Yes ❑No
11. Identify the type of appeal you are requesting(check all that apply):
IZI INTERPRETATION(p. 2) ❑VARIANCE EXTENSION(p.2) Ed USE VARIANCE(pp.3-6) ❑AREA VARIANCE(pp. 6-7)
Revised 01/2021
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALSAPPLICATION FORM PAGE 2
INTERPRETATION—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary):
I. Identify the section(s)of the Zoning Ordinance for which you are seeking an interpretation:
1983 VARIANCE AND 1973 CODE PROVISIONS
Section(s)
2. How do you request that this section be interpreted? PLEASE SEE ATTACHED NARRATIVE AND ATTACHMENTS.
3. If interpretation is denied,do you wish to request alternative zoning relief? D]Yes ❑No
4. If the answer to#3 is"yes,"what alternative relief do you request?❑ Use Variance ❑Area Variance
EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary):
1. Date original variance was granted: 2. Type of variance granted? ❑ Use ❑Area
3. Date original variance expired:
5. Explain why the extension is necessary.Why wasn't the original timeframe sufficient?
When requesting an extension of time for an existing variance,the applicant must prove that the circumstances upon which the original
variance was granted have not changed. Specifically demonstrate that there have been no significant changes on the site, in the
neighborhood,or within the circumstances upon which the original variance was granted:
Revised 01/2021
9 CLARK STREET INTERPRETATION
History of Property:
The instant application seeks an interpretation that the 4th unit contained in the 9 Clark Street property
continues to be a valid, non-conforming use on the property. The property is located in the UR-3 zone. The
tax map ID of the property is 165.84-1-79 and it contains two separately addressed/numbered multi-family
buildings on the one lot. The structure at issue in this application has an address of 9 Clark Street and
contains 4 apartment units. The adjacent structure is a duplex with a physical address of 11 Clark Street. In
1979, a third building (single family with number 13 Clark Street) located in the rear of the lot between 9
and 11 was torn town in order to provide parking for the tenants of 9 Clark Street. In the minutes of the
1983 meeting, Harry Snyder told the board that the neighborhood was comprised of all 4 and 5 unit
properties and there was inadequate parking.
Variance History:
The focus of this interpretation is a variance which was granted on June 22, 1983 by the ZBA to "convert 3
family apartment building into a 4 family apartment building." 1983 decision attached. At that time, the
property was located in the R-3 zone. The findings in the decision state that"It will be in harmony with the
general purpose of the ordinance and not injurious to the public welfare and is in keeping with the
characteristic of the neighborhood which is multi-family." In 1983, the city's code (1973 version attached)
and written decisions did not appear to distinguish between use and area variances and they used the
same criteria. The minutes reflect an inquiry relating "reasonable return"which demonstrates a use
variance was granted.
It is well known, and case law is clear, that variances run with the land. The purpose of this is so that the
variance, often related to a structure that has been constructed pursuant to the allowance of the variance,
may continue despite a change in ownership. Case law, however, does make a distinction for when a
variance can be of limited duration. The state's highest court found "it is basic that a variance runs with the
land and 'absent a specific time limitation, it continues until properly revoked." St. Onge v. Donovan, 71
NY2d 507(1988). A review of the simple 1983 variance demonstrates that it contained no time limitation.
Further review of the zoning code in effect at the time (1973 version) also demonstrates that there are no
provisions relating to expiration. Therefore, the variance allowing the 4th unit remains valid.
History of Time Limitations on Variances in the City:
The city planning and building department have advised that the current UDO, and prior iterations of the
city's zoning ordinance, do provide time limitations for variances. In the current UDO, expiration provisions
can be found at section 13-10(D)(3) and they are tied to"actual construction"which is defined as the
"fastening or placing of construction materials in a permanent manner, the excavation of a basement, or the
demolition or removal of any existing structure if no new construction is approved." If we were examining
this under the current UDO rules, the construction occurred, and the variance would be valid. In addition,
the actual decisions for variances contain language which tracks the UDO for actual construction but adds
an additional requirement of building permit issuance.
In contrast, in 1987, in response to litigation within the city, the City Council amended their code to enact
the first expiration provisions for variances. That local law tied expiration to "obtaining the necessary
building permit and begin actual construction or comply with the conditions of said authorization within one
year."The local law was clear that these provisions "shall take effect the day after publication as required
by the Charter of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York." The new law was not retroactive, and did not
apply to the 1983 variance. If it had, it appears that the variance would have expired because the building
department's file lacks an application for or granting of a building permit for that 4th unit.
The 1973 code, which was in effect at the time the 1983 decision was granted and is applicable to the
variance and the property, is wholly silent as to time limitations or other requirements for variances. A copy
of the variance portion of the 1973 code is attached for the board's review. The case cited above, from
NY's highest court, clearly establishes the standard that a variance runs with the land and continues,
absent a specific time limitation. The evidence in this case demonstrates that no specific time limitation was
contained in the decision, the minutes or the code in effect at that time. The 4th unit was clearly constructed
and used following the granting of the variance. The evidence further demonstrates that the new provision
of the code, which could be characterized as a knee-jerk reaction to the Congress Gas lawsuit, which
required a building permit and construction within one year of granting the variance, was not retroactive.
Therefore, the 4th unit is a valid, pre-existing, nonconforming use and should be allowed to continue.
Congress Gas:
A case which is relevant to this interpretation was the Congress Gas case commenced in the Supreme
Court at about the time this variance was granted. The court found that a variance granted many years
prior to construction was still valid. In this case, the complaint demonstrates that in 1973, the ZBA granted a
variance to Congress Gas to construct a mobile station on the corner of Lake and Gilbert Road. Site work
began some 13 years later in 1986, In 1987, site plan approval was granted and the owner installed a well.
Three months after the site plan was granted, the owner applied for a building permit, but was denied
because of the passage of an intervening local law (the above mentioned 1987 local law amendment). The
amendment to the local law provided for expiration of variances which had not received building permits
and commenced construction. The city council's action was intended to block the gas station from being
located at that site. The court found in favor of the applicant that the use was allowed and directed a
building permit to be issued. The local law was not effective because the city had failed to publish the
required notification of the amendment to the local law.The court directed the issuance of a building permit
for the use that had been granted the variance some 14 years previously. Despite the rezoning of the
property, the variance use remained valid, in the time between the granting of the variance and the
issuance of the building permit.
Conclusion:
Based on NYS law, the language of the decision and the code in effect at the time the decision was
granted, the use variance for 9 Clark Street allowing a 4th unit to be contained within the structure remains
valid.
Attachments:
1. 1983 Decision
2. 1983 Minutes
3. 1973 Code variance provisions
4. 1987 Amendment to the Zoning Code
5. Congress Gas Complaint and Decision
Official Form No.3 �2.3
i�
Resolu ton on Appeal -
BEFORE THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
I
i
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL
of
Anthony Sansiveri
from the determination of the Building Inspector
concerning
I
variance to-convert 3 family buildirg
into t. family apartment building
on the Premises No. 9 Clark Street
in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being
Section 165.84 ,Block 1 Lot 14
on the Assessment Map of the said City.
having heretofore appealed to this Board from a determination of the Building Inspector denying
appellant's application for permission;to convert 3 family apartment building into
a 4 family apartment building .
on the premises No. ...... .•-Glark••Street.......... in the City of Saratoga Springs, Being
Section ......�.�5...8�t..,. Block ........... ..... Lot No.........14..........on the As Map of said City,
on the ground that the same violates the zoning ordinance of said City in the following particulars, viz:
R.3 Zone
and the appellant having at the. same time applied for a variance/ it ioi&# r #"A#itnder
the Zoning Ordinance.of said City as amended. And due public notice having been duly given of a hear-
ing on said application to be held on the ....22nd..... day of ..................................J 19
une..............., ....83
and the applicant having appeared by .....Harry..-D. Sryder.••.•••Attorney.........--•••••...
................I........
in support of said application and ..:..:.no one
....................................................................................................
appearing in opposition, and, after due consideration, the,Board-having made the following find-
ings of fact:
it will be in harmony with the general purpose of the
ordinance and not injurious to the public welfare and is in keeping with
the characteristic 'of the neighborhood which is multi-family.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Anthony Sansiveri
is hereby authorized to convert into 4 apartments
on the premises No. g Clark Street in the City of Saratoga Springs,
New York, being Section 165..84 , Block 1. Lot 14 on the Assessment Map
of the City of Saratoga Springs, in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor to be sub-
mitted to and approved by the,Building Inspector of the City of Saratoga Springs, N.Y., �#
The-decision is on the following grounds:
It will'be'in harmony with the' general purpose' of the
ordinance and not injurious to the neighborhood. or -public welfare and
;is 'in keeping with- the characteristic of the neighborhood which is
multi-family.
Mkn
Dated
` .................. ...22............... 19....$3 :.
ADOPTED by the following vote:
AYES: NAYS: Absent:
Mr. Fox Mrs. McCormack J. Carusone
Mr". Ford S. Brown
Mrs. Farone
Mr. Polacsek
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS- OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS, N. Y.
...............�, ` .�?.ti ..... ................ .,...
Chairman
I HEREBY certify the above to.be a full, true, and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by
the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Saratoga Springs on the date above mentioned, ....rj..............
.
members of the Board being present.
...... ............
Secretary
Ms. Bleikamp stated rehab_+.litation costs would be about $70,000
and she has an easement from G.F. Blackmer for 5 spaces for parking.
She stated the use will not alter the character of the neighborhood -
'"' Price Chopper is to the rear of the property, there are row houses across
the street and other apartment units on the street. It will be a first
class rehabilitation to receive tax credits and will become a handsome:
production. /
Chairman Polacsek requested a copy of the easement. ;
Chairman Polacsek stated that the purchase coat ra/ shows
an easement to use no more than 5 spaces for the future oc upants of 22
Clinton St.
Mrs. McCormack asked about floor plans.
Ms. Bleikamp said there would be two studio apartments, a
one bedroom apartment and her apartment would be a triplex. The neighbor-
hood is a multi-family one. /
Chairman Polacsek asked if there ere parking problems there.
Ms. Bleikamp said she did not ink there was a problem
on Clinton St.
Mrs. McCormack asked abou the income from the rentals.
Ms. Bleikamp stated she would ask $175 for the studio apartments
.. $250 for the up-stairs one - the h�ird floor is not finished.
Mrs. McCormack ask how long the property had been on the
market.
Ms. Belikamp s id she did not know - it has been vacant for
a long time.
Mr. Ford a ed if there would be parking on the grass.
Ms. Bel' amp said no - she will extend the asphalt.
Mr. F d asked if she had considered parking on the south side.
Ms. Belimkamp said she had not - she plans to landscape that
area and then is a porch there.
/Marjorie Van Meter, West Side Neighborhood Assocation President,
said that �#1,3,4 and 5 are stll being renovated and they were concerned
about paring - she felt there would be a problem. She suggested they
could reduce the number of apartments s ou 9'—gl.-tvreg7alnz ?`epac�s
per unit. C1' �[ O_vt, �X- G t as
N. Hansen, 87 Division St. stated that this typ' of
renovation can save the West Side and Kple wi-11.1 have to learn to live
with parking problems. She said s'r��! w gild hate to lose the building
restoration because of parking.
Hearing closed.
The fourth application before the Board was that of
Anthony Sansiveri to convert a 3 family apartment building to a 4 family
apartment building at 9 Clark Street. Application, denial, appeal and
ZBt4' (1z.)
proof of publication were filed. Property is in an R-3 zone. 43
Harry D. Snyder, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating
AW that the application had been before the Board last November.
Mr. Snyder told the Board that Mr. Sansiveri owns #9-11-13
Clark Street - Exhibit # 1 - plot plan - they were three properties when
purchased. # 9 had 3 apartments and the only parking for -it was thc�
garage. A paved lot was added to that area. #11 had two four bed-room
apartments - the 3rd floor was shut off and it now has two two-bedroom
apartments. # 13 wa» single family house which was taken down - area
upgraded and parking area provided.
Mr. Snyder stated that the hardship is that, to make up for the
loss of one living unit, one apartment was added to #9 - one large apartment
was converted into two smaller -ones.
Photos were submitted to show that the buildings are maintained
in excellent manner and improvements made to provide adequate off street
parking for the buildings. A hardship was created in an attempt to comply
with the density of the ordinance. Permission is asked to use the
additional apartment in #9.
Chairman Polacsek asked if the building taken down alleviated
the density.
Mr. Snyder said that it did.
Mrs. McCormack asked when the one family house was taken down.
Mr. Sanisveri said it was :razed 4 years ago - the other apt.
was added in Sept. He also owns a barber shop and his own home on Park
Place.
Mrs. McCormack asked about the number of units in #9.
Mr. Sansiveri said there were 3 units, occupied and one apt.
was split into two. He said he was a little ahead in dollars after taking
down # 13 and adding one apt. to #9.
Mr. Ford inquired about parking spaces.
Mr. Sansiveri stated he has 5 or 7 spaces garages.
Mr. Ford astimated 'illr'p'? :V'.i':3 �JJ`lt`. 15 � )=ic)_ il•),I:
Mr. Sansiveri stated that the neighborhood is all four and five
unit properties without adequate parking.
Mrs. McCormack pointed out that the house was torn down 4 years
ago and she had difficulty with understanding the hardship.
Mr. Snyder said it relates to #9-11-13 - by providing the
additional parking the applil,ant was denied the use of one apartment.
Mrs. McCormack asked why there was not a reasonable return.
Mr. Snyder said he is faced with leaving #9 second floor empty
and perhaps becoming run-down. By itself, #9 would not have sufficient
parking. # 13 was a two-family house which was removed for additional
parking. Lawn was removed for more parking.
There were no appearances.
Hearing closed at 12:20 A.M.
The last application before the Board was that of Anthony
& Corinne 89irocco to construct a 17.5 x 26 ft. garage addition to their
home at 27 P'newood Avenue with side yard variance. Application, denial,
appeal and pr of of publication were filed. Property is in R-2 zone.
Mrs. irocco appeared before the Board stating their
property is 52 x 1,00 (plot plan - Exhibit #1) and they wish to erect a
garage but the con ruction will not maintain the side yard requirement
of 20 feet. There is a tree stump which has roots 20 feet in the ground
and which necessitated them going around in the plans for the size of
the garage. The footin cannot be placed thru the tree stump area.
G. Etesse, 25 Pin wood Avenue, appeared to support the project
stating his neighbors had no ellar or storage for bikes or car.
Chairman Polacsek not d that the majority of properties there
have less than the side yard regls\rements - they pre-date the ordinance.
Mr. Ford asked if the garage had been started.
Ms. Scirocco stated that the\,slab was poured - they thought
the maximum requirement was 15 feet - When they got their permit they
found out they needed. the variance. The wood is -tlsO ready there.
There were no other appearances.
Hearing closed at .12:30 P.M.
Recess declared.
Board re-convened in open session and the following decisions
were given:
1. Mrs. McCormack moved that the side yard ariance be
granted to Anthony & Corinne Scirocco, 27�Pinewood Ave.
on the grounds that denying the variance wo ld deprive
the owner of a reasonable use of the land an, it is not
injurious to the public welfare and is in keeping with
the neighborhood.
Seconded by Mr. Ford. Ayes all.
2. Mr. Polacsek moved that the application of Anthony Sansiveri
to convert 9 Clark St. from a 3 family residence to a 4
family residence be approved on the grounds that it will
be in harmony with the general purpose of the ordinance
an,' nb.t.. injurious to the neighborhood or public welfare
,and -to. ft keeping with the characteristic of the neighborhood
Seconded by Mr. Ford.
Ayes - Mr. Fox, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Farone, Mr. Polacsek
Nayes - Mrs. McCormack
Mrs. McCormack said she felt no hardship has been shown.
ljq ) Zoviin Ctdc
§ 135-33. Board of Appeals.
A. There is hereby established a Board of Appeals pursuant to
provisions of the General City Law. Such Board shall
consist of six (6) members appointed by the Mayor. The
City Council shall have the power to remove any member of
the Board of Appeals for just cause and after public
hearing.
B. Terms. The terms of the six (6) members of the Board of
Appeals shall be by appointment as follows: Two (2) •
members for a term of one (1) year; two (2) members for a
term of two (2) years; two (2) members for a term of three
(3) years. The term of office of the successors of such
members shall be for three-year terms. {Amended 1-18-711
C. Chairman and bylaws. The Board shall elect its own
chairman from among themselves and shall prescribe such
written rules of procedure, bylaws and forms as it may
.deem necessary for the proper execution of their duties.
Such rules, bylaws and forms shall be submitted to the
City Council for approval and filing for public view. The
City Council shall move to approve, reject or modify the
same within thirty (30) days after submission. Failure of
the City Council to so move shall be construed to con-
stitute approval of such rules, bylaws and forms.
D. Staff and expenditures. The Board of Appeals shall employ
a secretary, whose duty it shall be to keep the minutes of
meetings, receive applications and appeals and to assist in
any other rnanrier as may be necessary. Other assistance
and expense may be authorized provided the expenses do
not exceed any appropriation then available for such
purpose.
E. Powers and duties. The Board of Appeals shall have all the
powers and duties prescribed by law and by this chapter,
which are more completely prescribed as follows:
(1) Interpretation.
(a) Upon proper request, the Board of Appeals shall
decide any question involving the interpretation
of any provision of this chapter, including
Editor's Note. See Board of Appeals Rules and Regulations,in Appendix, part I.
13540 12-25-71
determination of the exact location of any district
boundary.
(b) Every request for interpretation shall be made in
the form and manner specified by the rules for
such procedure adopted by the Board of Appeals.
Said request shall set forth the exact in-
terpretation which is claimed or sought.
(2) Special permits.
(a) Application and issuance. On application and
after public notice and hearing, the Board of
Appeals may authorize issuance of a special
permit for any use for which this chapter requires
such a permit. No special permit shall be
authorized unless the Board of Appeals finds that
the proposed use or uses will not be injurious to
the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the
public welfare. To insure this fact, the Board shall
impose any conditions it deems necessary or
desirable. See also § 135-9.
(b) Referral to planning board. At least thirty (30)
days before the date of public hearing held in
connection with an application for a special
permit, the Board of Appeals shall submit a copy
of the application, copies of all maps and other
information relative to the case to the Planning
Board for its advisory opinions. The Planning
Board shall submit its advisory report prior to the
public hearing; failure to do so shall be construed
a favorable opinion for the granting of the special
permit. [Amended by Ordinance No. 529, 2-4-63.1
(c) Types of special permits. The Board of Appeals,
as a condition of granting any special permit, may
specify its term of validity. Three (3) types of
permits allowed are described as follows:
(lc) Permanent — allows a specific use to con-
tinue indefinitely until the specific use ceases
for any reason for a period of six (6) months.
13541 12-2G-z1
(2c) Temporary -- provides that the use shall be
discontinued at a given date. This type shall
not be extendable,
(3c) Renewable — provides that the permit be
renewed or extended periodically.
(d) Fee. Each original application to the Board of
Appeals for a special permit shall be accompanied
by'a fee of ten dollars ($10.),
(3) Variances on application and after public notice and •
hearing.
\)(a) Criteria for granting a variance. The Board of
Appeals shall have the power to vary or adapt the
strict application of any of the requirements of
the chapter, in the case of extraordinary physical
conditions, whereby such strict application would
result in unnecessary hardship that would deprive
the owner of reasonable use of the land or
building, but in no other case. A variance in the
chapter shall be granted by the Board of Appeals
only if it finds:
(la) There are special conditions, described in the
findings of the Board applying to the case in
question and not generally to the neigh-
borhood, and that said conditions are such
that strict 'application of the provisions of
this chapter would deprive the owner of
reasonable use of such land or buildings, and
(2a) The granting of the variance is necessary for
reasonable use of land or building and said
variance is the minimum variance, within the
same use that will accomplish this purpose,
and
(3a) The granting of the variance will be in •
harmony with the general purpose of this
chapter and will not be injurious to the
neighborhood and public welfare.
In no case shall reasons of additional
financial gain on the part of the owner of the
13542 12-25-71
buildings or land be considered as grounds
for granting a variance.
(b) Conditions. The Board of Appeals, in granting
any variance, shall prescribe any conditions that
it deems to be necessary or desirable.
(c) Compliance. The granting of a variance to this
chapter shall not obviate the necessity of com-
plying with all other applicable provisions of this
chapter in every other respect.
(d) Fee. Each application to the Board of Appeals for
a variance of this chapter shall be accompanied by
a fee of ten dollars ($10.).
(e) Review. The Board of Appeals shall have the
option to request the Planning Board to review a
request for a variance. [Added 7-7-711
(4) Appeals.
(a) Application. All appeals shall be made in the form
and manner prescribed in the rules of procedure
adopted by the Board of Appeals. Every appeal or
application shall refer to the specific provision of
the chapter involved, the decision, requirement,
act or failure to act of the Building Inspector, as
the case may be.
(b) Decisions. Every decision of the Board of Appeals
shall be by resolution, each of which shall contain
a full record of the findings of the Board in the
particular case. Each such resolution shall be filed
in the office of the City Clerk, by case number,
and under appropriate headings, together with all
other documents pertaining thereto.
The Board of Appeals may reverse, affirm,
wholly or partly, or modify any order,
requirement or decision, as it deems necessary, in
any case referred to it, and therefore shall have all
the powers of the Building Inspector from whom
the appeal was taken. The concurring vote of four
(4) members of the Board of Appeals shall be
13543 12-23-71
necessary to affirm any appeal upon which the
Board is required to pass.
(c) Stay of proceedings. Any appeal, properly filed,
shall stay all actions under such action appealed
from, unless the Building Inspector from whom
the appeal is taken certifies to the Board of
Appeals that by reason of facts stated in the
certificate a stay would, in his opinion, cause
imminent peril to person or property. .
(d) Restraining order. The Board of Appeals shall
have the power to grant a restraining order to
stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action
appealed from, over any action by the Building
Inspector from whom the appeal is taken, upon
notice to said officer and on due cause shown.
•
(The next page is 1s544.1)
13544 12-25-71
1.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
• PUBLIC HEARING - October 19, 1987 - 7:00 PM
PRESENT: Mayor Jones, Comm. Butler, Comm. McTygue, Comm. McGourty, Comm. Valentine
Mayor Jones called the public hearing to order at 7:00 PM.
Mayor Jones said the public hearing is being held to discuss the
following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 135
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
SPRINGS, NEW YORK, ENTITLED "ZONING"
BE IT ORDAINED by the, City Council of the City of. Saratoga Springs,
New York, following a public hearing, as follows:
SECTION I. Chapter 135, Section 33, Subdivision E(3)(d) of the Code
Of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, entitled "'Zoning-Variances on
Application and Public Notice and Hearing - Expiration" is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"(d) Expiration. Unless otherwise specified or extended by the
Board of Appeals, decision on any request for a variance
granted after the effective date of this amendment shall
. expire if the applicant fails to obtain the necessary building
permit to construct any existing building(s) and begin
actual construction or to comply with the conditions of said
authorization within one (1) year from the. filing date of such
decision thereof. Unless otherwise specified or extended by
the Board of Appeals, all variances granted prior to effective
date of this amendment shall expire if the applicant fails to
obtain the necessary building permit and begin actual construction
or comply with the conditions of said authorization within one (1)
year from the effective date of this amendment."
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect the day after publication
as required by the Charter of the City of. Saratoga Springs, New York.
Mayor. Jones noted that this ordinance means that if an applicant is
granted a variance from the Zoning Board, they have to start construction within
one year or the variance is invalid.
City Planner Bornemann noted this paragraph was misprinted by The
Sararogian in May 1986 and that is why we are having this public hearing tonight.
There are some variances that were issued several. years ago, and new ones, that
have not started construction and feel they,-should be notified that.this .
one year stipulation is on the record.
Hearing recessed at 7:12 PM.
• Hearing called to order at 7:25 PM.
Mayor Jones called the hearing to order at 7:25 PM. There being no
further comments from anyone, the hearing was adjourned.
- 1 -
STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT .
________________ COUNTY OF SARATOGA
CONGRESS GAS & OIL CO. , INC. , _ -
Plaintiff.
-against-
ELLSWORTH JONES, JOHN BUTLER, THOMAS MCTYGUE COMPLAINT
LAWRENCE McGOURTY and EDWARD VALENTINE;
Constituting the Members of the City Council of
City Council of the City of Saratoga Springs;
and MICHAEL BIFFER as Building Inspector of the
City of Saratoga Springs,
Defendants.
-------------
---------------------
The plaintiff-, by its attorneys,for a Complaint herein alleges as followSder, Kiley and Toohe
Y, as and
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
1 . That at all times hereinafter mentio
corporation organized and existin b ned the plaintiff was a
of New York, with g Y and under the laws of the State
Springs, Saratoga County, State Officated es
Springs, the City of Saratoga
2. That at all times herein relevant Ellsworth Jones J
Butler, Thomas McTygue, Lawrence McGourty and Edward Valentine
' ohn
constituted and still constitute the members of the City
the City of Saratoga Springs.. (Here
Council. ) inafter referred to asoCitil of
Y
3. That at all times relevant herein Michael Biffer w
Building Inspector of the City of Saratoga Springs char as the
responsibility of issuing building permits for the constructwith ion. ofe
commercial buildings .
I
f�
i
.4 . That at all times herein mentioned the plaintiff was the
owner of certain real property generally located at the intersection
of Lake Avenue and Gilbert Road in the City of Saratoga Springs,
Saratoga County, New York, and more specifically described as a 1.18
acre parcel of land designated on the City of Saratoga Springs Outside
District Tax Maps as Section 166, Block 3, Lot 6.
. 5 . That by Resolution dated July 18 , 1973 , the Zoning. Board of
Appeals of the .City of Saratoga Springs granted to the plaintiff a
variance to erect a "Mobil service center" on" the above specified
real property. A copy of the Board 's Resolution is attached -hereto
and marked Exhibit A.
6. That so as to prepare the above-specified site for the
..construction of the above indicated Mobil station, the plaintiff in
September and December of 1986 had extensive site work performed on
its above specified location.
7. That in furtherance of the construction of said station and
so, as to obtain- final .approval for the construction of the Mobil
station, from the Planning Board of the City of Saratoga Springs, the
plaintiff in March of 1987 had a well drilled, installed and tested so
as to prove it had ample pure water for the uses proposed on said
site.
8. That at its meeting held on March ll,. 1987 , the Planning
Board of the City of Saratoga Springs gave final site plan approval
for the construction of the above - specified Mobil station on the above
specified, lot.
I
9.. That on or about June 4, 1987 the plaintiff submitted an
application for a building permit to Michael Biffer, the Building
Inspector for the City of Saratoga Springs,- seeking a permit to
construct the above -specified approved Mobil station.
10 . That on May 9 , 1986 a legal advertisement appeared in The
Saratogian newspaper, the official newspaper of the City of Saratoga
Springs, . indicating that the City, Council would hold a public meeting
to amend Chapter 135, Section 33, Subdivision E of the Code of the
City. of Saratoga Springs. A copy of the. Affidavit of publication and
the legal notice pertaining to this public meeting is attached hereto
and made and marked Exhibit B.
11 . That the relevant -part of the May 9 , 1986 notice stated:
The proposed amendment makes the necessary distinctions
between and establishes the criterion for the two types of
variances - Area Variances and Use Variances. The amendment
also sets a one-year expiration date for variances if the
applicant does not build or comply and provides for a one-
year grace period from the adoption of these amendments to
permit past variances to be implemented. "
12 . That on May 19 , 1986, the City Council voted to amend Chapter
135, Section 33 , Subdivision E of the Code of the City of Saratoga
Springs , the .relevant part of which reads as follows :
" (f ) Expiration.. Unless otherwise specified or extended
by the Board .of Appeals, decision on. -any request for a
variance granted after the effective date of .this amendment
shall expire if .the applicant fails to obtain necessary
building permit to construct any existing buildings) and
begin actual construction, or to comply with the conditions
of said authorization within one (1)-. year from the filing
date of such decision thereof .
Unless otherwise specified or extended by the Board
of Appeals , all variances granted prior to effective date
of this amendment shall expire if the applicant fails to
obtain necessary building permit and begin actual con-
struction, or comply with the conditions of said authori-
zation within one (1) year from the effective date of
this amendment. "
A copy of the pertinent portions of the City Council meeting of May.
May 19, 1986 are attached hereto and marked Exhibit C.
13 . That the above specified amendment had to do with a change .
to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Springs. That
amendment to said Zoning Ordinance, according to Section 135-38 . (B).(2)
can only become effective as follows:
" (2 ) After Public Notice.. An amendment or revision in this
chapter shall take effect upon the publication thereof, in
accordance with the City Charter. "
14 . That the Charter of the City of Saratoga Springs in Section
. .68 specifies :
"All ordinances shall be published once after their passage.
and shall take effect the day after such publication. "'
15. That the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Springs and
.the Charter of the City of Saratoga Springs both require that
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance be published, in their .entirety, .
before they can become valid and effective.
16'. That the City of Saratoga' Springs never published its
proposed amendment to Chapter 135, Section .33(E) (3 ) (f ) as it pertains
to that amendment's effect on variances granted prior to the effective
date of the amendment and as a result that portion of the proposed
amendment has never legally taken effect:
17 . That attached hereto and marked Exhibit 'D is the Affidavit of
Publication, in The Saratogian, and the full text of the proposed
amendment to Chapter 135, Section 33 (E) . As is apparent Subsection
(3 ) (f) is completely void of any notice, wording or indication that
this ordinance had any effect upon or' would extinguish valuable rights
granted to the plaintiff with regard to its above specified 1973
variance'.
18 . That with regard to the plaintiff 's request for building
permit to construct a Mobil station on the plaintiff 's above specified
real property, Michael Biffer, acting. as Building Inspector for the
City of Saratoga Springs, denied the plaintiff 's request based on the
fact that Section 135-33(E) (3) (d) of the Zoning Ordinance made the use
variance granted to the plaintiff July 18 , 1973 a nullity as it had
expired. A copy of Mr. Biffer's letter dated June 'll, 1987 is
attached hereto and marked Exhibit E. That if, the effect to 'Section
135-33 (E) (3 ) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Springs
is to rescind the plaintiff 's approval, granted by the Zoning Board
and .Planning Board of the City of Saratoga Springs, to permit the
construction of a Mobil station on the plaintiff's above specified
real property then the value of the plaintiff 's real property would be
catastrophically affected as it would then change from an approved
commercial site to a substandard lot in a conservancy zone which would
only .permit the following uses : single-family residences, public
schools, parks and playgrounds; place of worship, golf course and
clubhouse, riding academy, general farming, New York State
Conservation, highway and .spa facilities, farms; picnic groves ;
marina, reforestation areas.
19 . That as Section 135-33(E) (3) of the Zoning Ordinance, as it
pertains .to variances granted prior to the effective date of the
proposed amendment was never published, it could not have taken effect
and as a result cannot be used as the basis for denying the
plaintiff ' s request for a building permit.
20 . That as a result of the failure to publish that portion of
the proposed amendment which would affect the variances granted prior
to the effective date thereof, the unpublished portion of the said
amended ordinance was never enacted according to the City of Saratoga
Springs'. own requirements and is ineffective and void.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
21 . The plaintiff repeats and reiterates paragraphs "l" through
"20" as if set forth in full herein.
22 . That in the letter from the Building Inspector dated June 11,
1987 ,. and . a.ttached hereto as Exhibit E, the Building Inspector has
informed the plaintiff that along with the fact that in the Building
Inspector' s opinion, that the plaintiff' s variance has expired, that
certain other matters would have to be submitted before a building
permit could be issued.
23. That the plaintiff in this matter has submitted or arranged. -
for submission of -all of the items required in the Building
Inspector ' s letter .of June 11, 1987.
24. That the City of Saratoga Springs and more specifically the
Building Inspector for the City of Saratoga Springs 'has been informed
that the amendment to Section 135-33 (E) (3 ) has not been published as
required by the ordinances of. the City of Saratoga' Springs and as a
result is void and ineffective as it pertains to variances granted
prior to the effective date of the statute. Attached hereto and
marked Exhibit F is a letter from the plaintiff 's- attorney to both the
i
Building Inspector and the City Attorney of the City of Saratoga
Springs specifying that the pertinent statute was not properly
published as required by the City Ordinance.
25 . That although all requirements set forth by the Building
Inspector . for the' City of Saratoga Springs have been complied with and
the Building Inspector for the City of Saratoga Springs has been shown
that the amendment to. the Ordinance as it pertains to the plaintiff 's
project is ineffective, he has still refused to issue a building
permit for the plaintiff 's above specified project. .
26. That. the actions of the defendant Building -Inspector in
refusing to issue to the plaintiff a building permit for this project
are illegal, void, arbitrary, unreasonable and constitute an abuse of
the powers vested in the defendant Building Inspector under the
ordinances of the City of Saratoga Springs.
27 . That the determination of the .Buildi.ng Inspector in refusing
to issue the building permit was final and cannot be adequately
reviewed by appeal to some other body or officer other than by a
proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 .
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants
on the first cause of action declaring void and ineffective that
portion of the amendment to Chapter 135, Section 33, Subdivision E
( 3 ) (f ) of the Code of the City of Saratoga Springs pertaining to
variances granted prior to the alleged effective date as said
amendment; and the second cause of action declaring the actions of the
Building Inspector of the City of Saratoga Springs arbitrary,
capricious, unreasonable and an abuse of his discretion and further
directing the Building Inspector of the City of Saratoga- Springs to
issue the requested building permit to the plaintiff and for such
other and further relief as to the .Court may seem just and proper..
Dated: July 7 , 1987
SNYDER, RILEY AND TOOHEY
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Office and PO Address
67 -West Avenue, PO Box 1043
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF SARATOGA
CONGRESS GAS & OIL CO. , INC. ,
Plaintiff,
-against- JUDGMENT
ELLSWORTH JONES, JOHN BUTLER, THOMAS INDEX NO. YF-35
McTYGUE, LAWRENCE McGOURTY and EDWARD -15:
'VALENTINE, constituting the members of "' cn
the City Council of the City of Saratoga
Springs, and MICHAEL BIFFER as Building ='='E �-
Inspector of the City of Saratoga Springs, ��=+ W )
• cn
Defendants.
i
i
The issues in the above-entitled matter having come on to be
heard by this Court pursuant to an action commenced by the Plaintiff
seeking to have Chapter 135, Section 33 of the City Code of the City
of Saratoga Springs, as amended by the City Council of the City of
Saratoga Springs, on May 19, 1986, declared void and ineffective as a.
result of the City of Saratoga Springs failure to properly publish
said amendment pursuant to Section 135-38 (B) (2) of the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Springs and further seeking an Order
of this Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and
Rules of the State of New York directing the Building Inspector of the
City of Saratoga Springs to issue a building permit to the Plaintiff
to construct a service station on certain real property owned by the
Plaintiff and designated as Section 166, Block 3, Lot 6 on the City of
Saratoga Springs Outside District Tax Map and the Defendants having
brought a motion pursuant to Rule 3212 of the Civil Practice Law and
Rules of the State of New York seeking an Order directing the entry of .
summary judgment in favor of the Defendants and the Plaintiff having
also served and brought a motion pursuant to Rule 3212 of the Civil
Practice Law and Rules of the State of New York seeking an order
directing the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and
this Court having heard said motions and with the consent of Richard
F. Mullaney, Esq. , City Attorney of the City of Saratoga Springs,
having issued an Order dated August ,2p , 1987, denying the Defendants '
motion for summary judgment and granting the Plaintiff 's motion for
summary judgment and further ordering the Building Inspector of the
City of Saratoga Springs to issue a building permit to the Plaintiff
for the construction of the above-specified service station and
further based on all pleadings and exhibits submitted to the Court;
r
NOW on motion of Snyder, Kiley and Toohey, Michael J. Toohey, i
Esq. , it is
ADJUDGED, DECREED AND DECLARED that Chapter 135, Section 33 of
the City Code of the City of Saratoga Springs as amended by the City
Council of the City of Saratoga Springs on May 19, 1986, is void and
ineffective and it is further
I
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Building Inspector of the
City of Saratoga Springs shall issue a building permit to the
Plaintiff to construct a service station upon the real property
designated as Section '166, Block 3, Lot 6 on the City of Saratoga
Springs Outside Tax District with said service station to be in
compliance with the site plan approved by the Planning Board of the
City of Saratoga Springs on March 11 , 1987.
Dated:
Saratoga Springs, New York j
E
N
T Y2.
E J.S.C.
R
Ii
E
co cn Co
Cn X7-i G-5 •�
N
Cn
^m C4
Cn
N
i
i
1
FORMI
a ; n. ip ti
,y!s 13 1�?�� { ,y���� �'KI 4���`47l aF�y� V�/• 4 ,$a �!.;+ ` i
id
WdWkim
,�*ogf�
yy c
'. _ 2 rj\.,` ,`•1/ , lei �.� y �� ,i �•,�� �
�.... \fa.", y' .+.Ji' '`il••'. t ✓J y.`:I Y.a• ilrlr•��11��in.•'!� ��/
r
�' YlIN•4�ladau ...m.'.. �
y,. •.its �....x..dv. -; »,u_,_...._. ._ � - � is�_
� •'ate � 4 �. � I34a>M"a;.
4.
Y4 '
'.. .• � •� :� � 'YS Y'4Sf. '"Lii®ai.. �% r I r�Y�
. r
a _
a
atifi ^
• p
xK .gin. .+
VI
ii
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part I - Project Information
Instructions for Completing
Part 1—Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the
application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on
information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as
thoroughly as possible based on current information.
Complete all items in Part 1.You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the
lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item.
Part 1—Project and Sponsor Information
SARATOGA COLLECTION LLC BY:MARK STRAUS
Name of Action or Project:
9 CLARK STREET INTERPRETATION
Project Location(describe,and attach a location map):
9 CLARK STREET,SARATOGA SPRINGS
Brief Description of Proposed Action:
INTERPRETATION REGARDING EXPIRATION OF 1983 VARIANCE AND ZONING CODE IN EFFECT AT TIME OF GRANTING OF VARIANCE
Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Telephone: 518-260-1229
MARK STRAUS BY ATTORNEY STEF FERRADINO E-Mail: STEF@FERRADINOFIRM.COM
Address:
15 KING ROAD
City/PO: State: Zip Code:
MIDDLE GROVE NY 12850
1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan,local law,ordinance, NO YES
administrative rule,or regulation?
If Yes,attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that El
be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no,continue to question 2.
2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other government Agency? NO YES
If Yes, list agency(s)name and permit or approval: ❑✓ ❑
3. a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? .35 acres
b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? 0 acres
c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? .35 acres
4. Check all land uses that occur on,are adjoining or near the proposed action:
5. m Urban ❑ Rural(non-agriculture) ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Residential(suburban)
❑Forest ❑ Agriculture ❑ Aquatic ❑ Other(Specify):
❑Parkland
Page I of 3
5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A
a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations? ❑✓ ❑ ❑
b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? ❑ ❑ ❑✓
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape? NO YES
❑ ❑✓
7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin,a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES
If Yes, identify: ❑✓ ❑
8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? NO YES
❑ ❑
b. Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? ❑
c. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed ❑ ❑
action?
9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES
If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies:
0✓ ❑
10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES
If No,describe method for providing potable water:
❑ ❑✓
11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES
If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment:
❑ ✓❑
12. a.Does the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building,archaeological site,or district NO YES
which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places,or that has been determined by the ❑ ❑
Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the
State Register of Historic Places?
b.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for ❑
archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)archaeological site inventory?
13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES
wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency? ❑✓ ❑
b. Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? ❑ ❑
If Yes,identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres:
Page 2 of 3
14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on,or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply:
❑Shoreline ❑ Forest ❑Agricultural/grasslands ❑ Early mid-successional
❑Wetland m Urban ❑ Suburban
15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats,listed by the State or NO YES
Federal government as threatened or endangered?
Frosted Elfin,Kamer Blue ❑
16. Is the project site located in the 100-year flood plan? NO YES
❑✓ ❑
17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? NO YES
If Yes, ✓❑ ❑
a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? ❑ ❑
b. Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems(runoff and storm drains)? ❑ ❑
If Yes,briefly describe:
18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the impoundment of water NO YES
or other liquids(e.g.,retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)?
If Yes,explain the purpose and size of the impoundment: ❑ ❑
19. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste NO YES
management facility?
If Yes,describe: ❑ ❑
20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO YES
completed) for hazardous waste?
If Yes,describe: ❑ ❑
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWLEDGE
Applicant/sponsor/name: ,,S- PHANIE FERRAOINO,ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT Date:
Signature: L A—DTitle:
PRINT FORM Page 3 of 3
EAF Mapper Summary Report Monday, May 8, 2023 11:43 AM
Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist
project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental
1,i5 8�_1.6 165.8A-1 18 -165_•8`1 1-25 assessment form(EAF).Not all questions asked in the EAF are
I`'5: 4 1 - answered by the EAF Mapper.Additional information on any EAF
1 r question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although
�`---- 165.8 41 17 1 ii�.81_ 1 2 6 the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to
1 65.84-1-7 j - DEC,you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order
to obtain data not provided by the Mapper.Digital data is not a
1+i5.84-1-16 f 165 84-1-27 - substitute for agency determinations.
165.84-1•8
'165.8.1-1-30 ptta hlnntraal
165.84-1-9 165,84-1.79 -
165.84-110 SaratO Sp tin 165.8.1•-'I-31
165.84'1 11 Toronto t�r
165:84-1-71-7,'I Ro
165.8 F=1-32 x"I HIIR�, frr.Ln
165.84-1 ;'!_.. Albany8ata1
II A65.84•-1 83 Dotrolt
i 165.84-1-41 .:-"f Cleveland ,Pr vJdmc*
165.84,11-49 A 165.84-1-U ! w:: s.Esr HE6'E,.G +,mqp,(.SG: Irt r -tom,IC;ti EPaEh;--
SUIICC> E�li-HERr,:i6vir n.USU:5 ' -.!I' l: iG� I I L,'-III :Ia E.�gJ;>h��Zry6;lfjt� Eti'I qK( :�I I,1 Prka trr a 41 a -I It•,n u r., 11 ( Ira C.•,'I
.;•j,- C011ulri, Fhll�nhlnl�ll
t:f1f� •',')fcs�^ l,q (;n Koltla E n"ha,I4rr1, I•:(;� �f�l r�.tr e�f.tl j,�onlrI,1 Ic1, '1 1 rI 1% , ; .. 1 r tr t-,1, r In ,.I f , 1 •,.Ir•
165.84-1-4a
r I''- ]},.i� (•�rltll`'l.l ty dtlildl. -I ._ 1 .t. ..I =111-'I 1- 1_:
� l __16S.ti - ,',' 4'bucriirl�rdrl�"
Part 1 /Question 7 [Critical Environmental No
Area]
Part 1 /Question 12a [National or State !No
Register of Historic Places or State Eligible
Sites]
Part 1 /Question 12b [Archeological Sites] Yes
Part 1 /Question 13a[Wetlands or Other No
Regulated Waterbodies]
Part 1 /Question 15[Threatened or Yes
Endangered Animal]
Part 1 /Question 15[Threatened or i Frosted Elfin, Kamer Blue
Endangered Animal-Name] i
Part 1 /Question 16[100 Year Flood Plain] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
Part 1 /Question 20[Remediation Site] IYes
Short Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report ,