HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230358 182 Excelsior Area Variance Public Comment (3)I write solely as a resident, in no official capacity, representing my family and a group of neighbors, the Excelsior Neighborhood group. That said, I’m personally pretty attached to
the beauty of this neighborhood, and am the closest homeowner to it on Excelsior Spring Ave. I’ve lived here 23 years. There is a property a bit closer, but it is a rental that changes
tenants every year or so.
Before I make my comments, I want to mention a couple of procedural things:
Per city requirement: Has the application presented to the ZBA its PO certificate of mailing notice to neighbors? If not, regs indicate that you can’t hold this hearing tonight.
The notice of the ZBA public hearing on the lawn sign in front of the building on Excelsior Ave was moved off the frontage to in front of the building and not visible to casual passersby.
Additionally, in his denial of the application, the city zoning & building inspector indicated that the application requires an advisory opinion from the Saratoga County Planning Board.
We have not heard whether they’ve submitted their opinion. We couldn’t find it in any of the online documents. So we’d like clarity on that point.
And lastly, On p 8 of the application under disclosures the applicant says yes to the question whether a city officer, employee or family member has a financial interest in the application.
If yes a statement disclosing the name, residence and nature of the interest is required. We don’t see this included with the application. Please do disclose this information, as required.
The Excelsior Neighborhood Group does not oppose the project per se. We just want the developers to scale it back. Our biggest concern is that the proposed increase in residential density
at this intersection will create a real safety hazard, especially with the number of pedestrians and bikers using the new trail system.
We hope to be part of the conversation and even help move toward positive outcomes for all involved.
We understand the complexities of a project on this property.
With that in mind, we request you deny the application for the area variance, as it was denied by the City Zoning and Building Inspector in June (document dated June 29, 2023). We understand
that at its last meeting, the Planning Board voted unanimously to give an advisory opinion to the ZBA to permit the variance and
thus the increased density at the site. But we believe that allowing this increased density, TEN units above the Comp Plan max for this zone, sets a poor standard – and a precedent that
other boards and applicants will want to follow.
Our city’s zoning regs, UDO, and comp plan were hashed out over many years of thought and deliberation. This piecemeal approach is not good planning. Why not simply follow the regs?
The area variance would create a parcel much smaller than required for the number of units proposed. It would allow for just 2228 square feet per dwelling unit, which is 772 square feet
or 26% smaller than the 3000 square foot minimum required per dwelling unit in the UR-4 District. This means the developer can fit 36 dwelling units in a space the regs say can only
handle 26. We implore you to keep the number of new units to the allowed 26 -- not 36.
We respectfully disagree with the Planning Board’s view that preserving the existing apartment building, formerly a private mansion, is worth what essentially amounts to a density bonus.
We note that the surrounding neighborhood is mostly single-family homes, much less densely built up. Indeed, all of Excelsior Spring Ave. is single family except for the former water
bottling plant, which is surrounded by open space preserved by Saratoga PLAN.
Furthermore, we disagree with the Planning Board’s SEQRA Neg Dec that this multi-family development will not substantially change the character of the neighborhood. The whole community
values the open space and the Spring Run Trail that runs behind the property. 36 new units on this land right next to a valued community natural resource will most definitely change
the character of the neighborhood. And will absolutely have an impact on pedestrian/biker/vehicular safety on Excelsior Spring and Excelsior Avenues. Not to mention the wildlife corridor.
To grant an area variance, the ZBA must “balance the benefits to the applicant and the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and community.” The ZBA is not supposed to consider
the economics of a project; it is not your job to make the project economically feasible for the developer.
Excelsior Neighborhood Group believes that granting the area variance skews the balance in favor of the developer and away from the neighborhood and community.
The UDO has some clear language about subdivisions.
Article 15.2 states:
A) All lots created during subdivision must comply with the minimum lot area and width standards of the applicable zoning district. This does not.
B) Every lot created by subdivision must front on a street and must be substantially similar in shape to those lots on the same block. This proposal does not envision such a layout.
So these are the reasons to deny the area variance
We just want to add that while this public hearing is about the area variance, that single issue cannot -- must not -- be looked at in isolation. We were pleased to hear the Planning
Board say that the site plan still needs work, and are hopeful that it will be redesigned to move the driveways off Excelsior Spring Ave. We will leave that part of our commentary to
share with the Planning Board. However, with 36 new units, we do not understand how the traffic study indicated just 9 cars in and out twice each day. Where is the math on that?
Bigger is not always better, and this is not a good location for such a concentrated number of dwellings.
In my 23 years on this road, I've seen traffic increase in speed, volume, and recklessness. According to traffic data, In the past 10 years, there have been 71 accidents on these 2 roads.
I’ve witnessed several of them. That is cause for concern.
The location of these units is at a very tricky spot on the road: a hill, a blind spot, a T-intersection with only one stop sign and then another intersection with a 4-way stop. These
new units will only increase the confusion at this intersection.
Two large properties on Excelsior Spring are also prime for redevelopment. Number 21 or so -- the “Old Water Bottling Plant.” As well as # 26 – the 4.5 acre parcel with the small white
house. Both contain valuable woodland/wetlands on the opposite side of Spring Run creek from the property in question. We recommend a full study of this corridor to avoid the silo/piecemeal approach
, so it is considered as part of the whole natural resource area that it is.
Laura Rappaport