HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230307 56 Marvin Second Principal Structure Requested Information
June 28, 2023
Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals Via Electronic Submission
Attn: Aneisha Samuels
City Hall – 474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
Re: 56 Marvin Street
Dear Chairman and ZBA members:
During the last meeting and workshop, the Zoning Board of Appeals requested information relating to this
property. As stated during the presentation, this area is dense and mixed, with multiple structures on many
of the lots, commercial structures, a hospital and the DPW garage. The relief we are seeking was granted
to the adjacent neighbor at 68 Marvin, who has a similarly sized lot. Please accept the following information
relative to the request.
Comparable Properties:
During the last presentation, slide 15 (as viewed below) was the best depiction of other homes and lots in
the area that have multiple residential structures or multi-family residences on one lot. These are all in the
neighborhood of the subject property, within a few blocks from 56 Marvin. The best example of a
comparable is the property directly adjacent to the subject lot, 68 Marvin. This lot cont ains a large single-
family home and pool that face on Marvin, with two other separate structures on McNulty Way. One is
another single-family home and the other is a large two-story structure that looks like a home but is used for
storage and garage space.
Following the first presentation, I noticed the following two additional properties which appear to house two
separate structures on one lot. 3 Van Rensselaer Street which sits on the corner of a street and an alley
has a two-story residence located behind it on McNeary Alley. Across the street, 2 and 4 Van Rensselaer
are side by side and appear to be similarly situated. They are not circled in the below slide, but are located
one block away from the subject property.
Page 2
Google Map View
During the workshop, Mrs. Gray asked that we prepare a google map image showing the proposed
structure and the parking. Please see below, which will be a slide during the next presentation.
Page 3
Addition to the House
The Board inquired why an addition could not be added to the house in order to make an in -law apartment.
There are various interior and exterior siting reasons why this is not a viable solution. In addition, recent
significant financial investment made to the home provide substantial disincen tive to “redo” those changes
with additional modifications to the home.
In 2016, Maggie made significant $130,000 investment in the house in order to replace an unpermitted,
foundationless bedroom and bathroom with a permitted bedroom and bathroom locate d on a new
foundation, increased the size of a bedroom and added a home office. Following the completion of that
work, in 2017, she added the deck and screen porch which run the full length of the back of the house, at
an investment of $32,000. Together, this is a total of $162,000 worth of investment in the last 7 years, and
to “undo” parts of it to accommodate something that could otherwise occur on the site is not financially
feasible.
As you can see from the survey, the north-westerly and southern portions of the lot would otherwise be the
most likely areas for an in-law to be added. The north and northeast sides of the house have insufficient
area for an addition. The floor plan of the new layout following the 2016 modifications is below. In no
particular order, the difficulties which would occur from an addition vs a freestanding home include the
following:
1. Any connection to new living space would require reconfiguration, disruption and displacement of
the bedrooms or main bathroom. These existing rooms are not of sufficient size to accommodate a
hallway connection and there is insufficient room anywhere else within the home to otherwise
make a connection.
2. Buildout from existing bedroom #2 would have the following impacts:
a. Disrupt rooflines, resulting in water collection and damage during winter months
b. Block two windows in the master bedroom
c. Removal of a pine tree
d. Damage to 10 years of native plant/pollinator gardens cultivated by applicant
3. The house has rooflines pitched at different angles which would be disrupted by any interior
modification and addition.
4. The deck was newly constructed and provides light to the outdoor space for the rooms it connects
to. To connect to the back of the house would require tearing down the newly constructed deck
and/or screen room, removal of the large sugar maple and an apple tree and conversion of the
home from a 3 bedroom to a 2 bedroom.
5. A large sugar maple is located on the back of the deck and would be impacted by any addition.
6. The site topography in the rear of the house is significantly different than the front, which would
require access through stairs. The purpose of the new home is to have single level living for the
applicant’s mother.
7. The +/-750 sf area necessary to allow for independent living would encroach on setbacks if placed
on other locations on the lot.
Page 4
I will share with the board other visuals which depict the site during the presentation on July 10 th. To the
extent further information would be helpful to the board in advance of the meeting, please do not hesitate to
reach out to me and request. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Stephanie W. Ferradino
Cc: Margaret Sweet