Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230325 151 & 153 Nelson Public Comment7/11/23, 12:07 PM Zimbra https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=16423&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 Tue, Jul 11, 2023 10:44 AM 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 John P Boardman Email Address bbmojo1958@gmail.com Business Name Field not completed. Address 118 WHITE STREET City SARATOGA SPRINGS State NY Zip Code 12866 Phone Number Field not completed. Project Name 151& 153 Nelson Subdivision Project Number 20230325 Project Address 151-153 Nelson Ave 7/11/23, 12:07 PM Zimbra https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=16423&tz=America/New_York 2/2 Comments The variances requested are for conditions that are self- created. I ask the ZBA to consider denying these requests. On site parking: Based on the owner’s current use of this property, the parking space relief is unnecessary. For many years now the property owner has, on the south east corner of the property, operated a parking service during the track season that accommodates well over the 8-space relief that he is requesting. Consequently, an on-site parking precedent, years in the making, has been established by the property owner himself demonstrating that parking that meets zoning regulation is available on site, negating the need for street parking. Lot 3 setbacks: In addition, setbacks should comply with current zoning regulations for the residence proposed at the location of the existing barn/garage (aka lot 3). Whether the existing structure is renovated or demolished, the outline for the proposed structure will significantly exceed the current footprint and most importantly will now be a residence rather than storage - a completely different use. The request for setback variances is self-created and can be avoided entirely with a site plan that complies with current zoning regulations. Questions; 1. How can variances be granted without a detailed understanding of what’s going to be built? The applicant claimed it will be a “residential building lot” to be sold. What guarantee does the ZBA have that what is eventually built by a yet to be identified buyer will not result in a request for more variances, leveraging the variances in this current request? I recommend the ZBA and Building department revisit the history of 39 Murphy lane. https://saratogaspringspolitics.com/2016/02/23/neig hbors-to-zba39-murphy-lane-a-case-of-bait-and- switch/ 2. What is the parking expected to be for the lot 3 residence? If a garage is located on the White St side (unspecified in the variance request), the short 10’ setback requested is potential for problems that ca Attach Photo (optional)Roohan propert zba response July 2023.docx Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. John Boardman, property owner of 118 White St The variances requested are for conditions that are self-created. I ask the ZBA to consider denying these requests. On site parking: Based on the owner’s current use of this property, the parking space relief is unnecessary. For many years now the property owner has, on the south east corner of the property, operated a parking service during the track season that accommodates well over the 8-space relief that he is requesting. Consequently, an on-site parking precedent, years in the making, has been established by the property owner himself demonstrating that parking that meets zoning regulation is available on site, negating the need for street parking. Lot 3 setbacks: In addition, setbacks should comply with current zoning regulations for the residence proposed at the location of the existing barn/garage (aka lot 3). Whether the existing structure is renovated or demolished, the outline for the proposed structure will significantly exceed the current footprint and most importantly will now be a residence rather than storage - a completely different use. The request for setback variances is self-created and can be avoided entirely with a site plan that complies with current zoning regulations. Questions; 1. How can variances be granted without a detailed understanding of what’s going to be built? The applicant claimed it will be a “residential building lot” to be sold. What guarantee does the ZBA have that what is eventually built by a yet to be identified buyer will not result in a request for more variances, leveraging the variances in this current request? I recommend the ZBA and Building department revisit the history of 39 Murphy lane. https://saratogaspringspolitics.com/2016/02/23/neighbors-to-zba39-murphy-lane-a-case-of- bait-and-switch/ 2. What is the parking expected to be for the lot 3 residence? If a garage is located on the White St side (unspecified in the variance request), the short 10’ setback requested is potential for problems that can be found through out the city; i.e., cars parking in a too-short driveway that now blocks the public sidewalk. E.g., see 115 Nelson Ave - the city allowed this setback and now cars routinely park in the drive and block the sidewalk because the driveway is not long enough. These sidewalks are heavily trafficked during track season. 3. By allowing a subdivision, it was noted by the board that each lot will continue to carry the UR-3. What guarantee does the ZBA have that that lot 3 won’t become a multi-family structure, which now requires 2 parking spaces per residence? The applicant’s proposal does not provide near enough definition to assure that more variances won’t be requested, once this lot is better defined.