Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230358 182 Excelsior Area Variance Public Comment (5)7/21/23, 4:13 PM Zimbra https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=17203&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 Fri, Jul 21, 2023 03:38 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 Daniel Berheide Email Address dberheide@gmail.com Business Name Field not completed. Address 19 Excelsior Spring Ave City Saratoga Springs State NY Zip Code 12866 Phone Number 5184613614 Project Name 182 Excelsior Project Number Field not completed. Project Address 182 Excelsior 7/21/23, 4:13 PM Zimbra https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=17203&tz=America/New_York 2/2 Comments Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, RE: 182 Excelsior Variance Application Questions and Responses We are happy to learn that an investment is being proposed on the site, in the neighborhood, and Saratoga Springs. Enhancing the property, upgrading the existing structures, and adding more housing could provide an incredible benefit to the surrounding community. That said, before any proposal can move forward there are inconsistencies in the application, issues that need to be addressed, and an incomplete account of the potential scale of impact. A variance should not be given simply to secure profits or perceived economic hardship. The comprehensive plan and zoning is in place to preserve the quality and character of our neighborhoods and the City of Saratoga. According to the New York Department of State Guidelines for Zoning Board of Appeals the applicant must prove "unnecessary hardship." If requesting an area variance, that is, permission to build in an otherwise restricted portion of the property (such as in the required front, side or rear yards, or above the required building height, or in excess of the lot coverage regulations), then State law requires the applicant to show that the benefit the applicant stands to receive from the variance will outweigh any burden to health, safety and welfare that may be suffered by the community. State law requires the ZBA to take the following factors into consideration in making its determination: Note: Please see my attached document as the comments box limits the content and does not permit all of my responses and questions. I also have references to additional information in the document that can be provided to support the decision- making process. Attach Photo (optional)182 Excelsior Variance Application Questions and Responses.pdf Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, RE: 182 Excelsior Variance Application Questions and Responses We are happy to learn that an investment is being proposed on the site, in the neighborhood, and Saratoga Springs. Enhancing the property, upgrading the existing structures, and adding more housing could provide an incredible benefit to the surrounding community. That said, before any proposal can move forward there are inconsistencies in the application, issues that need to be addressed, and an incomplete account of the potential scale of impact. A variance should not be given simply to secure profits or perceived economic hardship. The comprehensive plan and zoning is in place to preserve the quality and character of our neighborhoods and the City of Saratoga. According to the New York Department of State Guidelines for Zoning Board of Appeals the applicant must prove "unnecessary hardship." If requesting an area variance, that is, permission to build in an otherwise restricted portion of the property (such as in the required front, side or rear yards, or above the required building height, or in excess of the lot coverage regulations), then State law requires the applicant to show that the benefit the applicant stands to receive from the variance will outweigh any burden to health, safety and welfare that may be suffered by the community. State law requires the ZBA to take the following factors into consideration in making its determination: (1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; a. Response – There is more detail to be found elsewhere below, but in short, the proposed is would be more densely developed both in size and scale and not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed has the potential to bring many detrimental impacts to character and quality of the neighborhood, architecture being of less a concern than traffic and environment. (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method which will be feasible for the applicant to pursue but would not require a variance; a. The applicant can redesign the buildings so as to comply with the code. The property is clearly capable of earning a reasonable return on investment, for instance, charge higher rents for improvements. The applicant appears to be arguing the need for a variance because of the higher costs and has not demonstrated that they cannot earn a reasonable return on investment. Are they currently not able to pay taxes after rents? Would they not be able to pay for costs if they were to pursue alternative designs like fewer units for higher prices? (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; a. The requested area variance is substantial. If I have my math correct, they want to go from a minimum unit size of 3,000 sq ft to 2,229 sq ft. – that is a 25% reduction. That seems substantial to me. How about a reduction in the parking to meet the unit size? (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; a. There is more detail below, however, the proposed has a potential to adversely impact the physical environment on the site, directly adjacent to the site within the public space, and in the neighborhood more generally – traffic, stormwater, and other related environmental impacts. The neighborhood has seen increased traffic and development as the limits of development from downtown begin to break waves, however, the infrastructure has not kept up. Instead, the city has permitted development in the adjoining areas and installed recreation without updating essential infrastructure especially on Excelsior Spring Ave. While we welcome these improvements in our adjacent neighborhoods, we are less safe walking on our streets as more traffic is directed through the area. Further development without improvements will not only alter the neighborhood character, it will continue to reduce the safety of its residents. (5) whether an alleged difficulty is self-created. a. The difficulty is self-created. Alternative designs could be pursued while meeting both the request by the city and the desire of the developer that do not create a need for a variance. There are no unique or uncommon circumstances affecting this property that are not otherwise commonly applied by policy to other properties in Saratoga. The current zoning ordinance has been in place for over a decade (2012). If there was a unique issue to developing the property beyond what it is permitted, it should could have been voiced earlier. The property is large and in a neighborhood zoned with flexibility as to how it is developed, yet the applicant wants to go beyond what is permitted for development for the purpose of maximizing income. Unlike the use variance test, the ZBA need not find in favor of the applicant on every one of the above questions. Rather, the ZBA must merely take each one of the factors into account. The ZBA may also decide that a lesser variance than the one requested would be appropriate, or may decide that there are alternatives available to the applicant which would not require a variance. According to the “Application for: Interpretation, Use Variance, Area Variance AND/OR Variance Extension” the following are responses made to the statements and corresponds to the questions therein: 1. The applicant does not answer the first question on the application directly or adequately. The question asks what is the benefit being sought and what alternatives were explored. The implication is the applicant is seeking to balance the request by the Historic Preservation Office to preserve the original building while still meeting their bottom-line profit, or as they state “proposed dwelling units justifies the development costs and reasonable return on investment”. The response only describes a desire to recoup the costs of preserving the existing structure and does not articulate the exploration of other alternatives. What other designs were considered? Why can the applicant not simply renovate the existing structures? Why does their need to be a subdivision? Instead of exceeding the required parking and requesting a scaled down unit size, why not reduce the parking and meet the required unit size? The proposed is an increase in impact on the site and neighborhood and inconsistent with the surroundings. 2. The applicant again does not fully respond to the question. The development of the property is a significant increase in number of units, traffic, impervious surface/stormwater runoff, alteration of the natural landscape adjacent to and on public property, reduction in safety and burden on emergency services, among other undesirable changes that can have an undue and detrimental impact on the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood character. Alone the aesthetic impact of new buildings will double the number of 3-story buildings from the existing conditions within the neighborhood (1,000 foot radius of the site). Reducing the existing trees and buffer and planting (undefined plantings) does not provide a visual buffer and instead will increase runoff, reduce ecological benefits and contiguous vegetated habitat, and subtract from the existing natural beauty along the public space and rights-of-way impacting not only the site and neighborhood, but the natural community and larger public. a. Further clarification is needed. The applicant states the site is currently occupied with 10 apartments but Zillow states there are only 9 bathrooms and 18 bedrooms, suggesting 9 2 – bedroom apartments. The Saratoga County tax parcel viewer “Image Mate Online” inventory states there are 8 units. 3. The applicant again side-steps the question. The requested variance is on its face considered substantial because the request is based on the desire to fully develop over the capacity of the property by increasing the number of units (from 10(?) units totaling 18 bedrooms) on the existing site to 63 (two bedroom units?). A “reasonable return” (i.e. making profit) on investment is not justification for requesting an exception to the zoning ordinance that all residents adhere to in the City of Saratoga. Pushing the proposed units towards the perimeter of the property is consequentially directing impacts towards neighboring properties including valuable public and recreational space. Furthermore, stormwater management areas should not be considered “open space” and is very misleading. The function and purpose of the area is to mitigate the runoff from increased impervious pavement, not for recreation or visual/aesthetic enjoyment. Remember, this parcel is located in an MS4 designated area. Stormwater regulations are stricter and must be seriously considered. 4. The response again is incomplete and misleading. (A) The applicant states the site is adjacent to the NC zoning district, when in fact it is primarily surrounded by urban residential – 1 (medium density single-family) and Parkland/Recreation. Extending the neighborhood out further for the sake of argument, the Transect 4/5 Neighborhood center and NC – neighborhood complimentary are all intended to provide act as a “district [that] also focuses on providing quality streetscape amenities and civic spaces to enhance pedestrian activity” (Page 2 of the Zoning Ordinance – Transect 5). The proposed does not improve the public pedestrian accommodations or civic space but instead is a direct impact to the already overstressed and unsafe conditions that exist particularly on Excelsior Springs Ave. Increasing traffic after installing a new bike path seems contradictory and unsafe. No attempt to address these issues is made and is another example of the adverse physical and environmental effect on the neighborhood. (B) The applicant states the project will be visually pleasing and while it may be similar in aesthetic to the existing structure, it will be a large physical impact on the landscape inconsistent with the surrounding properties, even including the old bottling plant which is only two stories and significantly setback from the roadway. I am sure the stormwater systems proposed are consistent with general guidance but that does not mean that all stormwater is managed on site. What is the stormwater retention capacity of the proposed ponds? What happens when they overflow? Even with stormwater ponds, the impervious surface and curb cuts will result in runoff moving across Excelsior Spring into catch basins as well as in to the brook. This brook flows into Loughberry Lake, the City of Saratoga’s drinking water supply. The tributary is already considered impaired (see factsheet) by the DEC Increasing the development reduces the natural space, increases reliance on engineered systems, and does not eliminate impacts to the directly adjacent areas under preservation. A wetland was located on the property. The New York State Environmental Resource Mapper clearly indicates the property is in State Regulated Wetland Checkzone. So while I applaud their doing due diligence and obtaining the Federal level non-jurisdictional authorization from the Army Corps of Engineers, it does not dismiss their responsibility to local impacts and their neighbors. What is perhaps purposefully left nearly absent and hardly noted is a portion of the brook’s natural boundary crosses the corner of the property adjacent to where the development proposes installing an undefined stormwater management area. While the proposed development may (to be determined) sit outside of the currently delineated FEMA 100-year flood zone it does not mean that removing all of the existing vegetation, changing site grades and conditions, soil amendments, compaction, and enlarging the amount of impervious surface and runoff significantly will not in fact have an impact on boundaries of flooding. Instead that development is more likely to present an increase in risk to the existing structures and residents on the other side of the floodway, brook, and trail. The USDA Web soil survey in fact illustrates the boundary of the “Fluvaqvents frequently flooded” area to include a portion of the property where the most vegetation exists. The maintained lawn appears to go up to this point and no further, perhaps naturally designating this area as sensitive and the existing vegetative cover provides structure and security. This area should be considered a Critical Environmental Area for this and other reasons. 5. The applicant again dismisses the process and ignores the basis of the question. The difficulty is clearly self-created. The applicant has the right to improve their property and attract higher rents and income, however, is attempting to go beyond allowed limits according to the zoning requirements shifting responsibility to the historic preservation office for requesting they consider the existing and historic character property to justify their interest in recouping the costs for development - “even though they are not listed on the national register” seems a dismissive statement. Financial burden alone is not enough while displacing the potential costs on to their renters/residents, neighbors and ultimately the city. In response to the Short Environmental Assessment Form, the following comments are provided for the consideration of the Zoning Board of Appeals: “Applicant is proposing to relocate the existing residence and carriage house (8 unit condominiums) onto their own lot and construct four garden style apartment buildings totaling 36 units on a second lot.” (Even this statement is misleading as it does not appreciate that the proposed is an exponential increase from 9 (maybe 8- apartments with 18 parking spaces (developed footprint approx .65 ac) to 44 units with 76 parking spaces on 2.34 ac (regardless of how it is subdivided)). 1. The description is inaccurate and should returned to the applicant as incomplete. 2. (Question 3) The total acreage to be disturbed extends to the very bounds of the property, as much of the “proposed action” (2.5 ac), more than the response (1.75 ac), and potentially more as staging, construction traffic, etc. will impact the local streets, public right of way, and neighboring properties. It is generous to believe that contractors will stick to less than the property boundaries. Where is the site development plan including these details such as, construction access, soil and erosion controls, staging, etc.? a. Need for clarification - The “Boundary and Topographic Survey” prepared by MJ Engineering notes the property is 2.39 acres, but the tax map states the property as 2.39 acres – which is it? 3. (Question 5/6) The proposed action is debatably not consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan and not consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape as it increases the density of housing units significantly, is not similar to the predominant surrounding architecture and fundamentally reduces the natural landscape. There are few 3 story buildings on the proposed sized lots reflected in the neighborhood. In fact, within nearly quarter mile radius, and perhaps greater, the proposed buildings would more than double the number of three story buildings and density within a quarter mile and more. If this proposal was in the developed area at the intersection of East Avenue and Excelsior Avenue or the development along I-87 at the other end of Excelsior Avenue, that would be different, but the proposed would potentially place (dozens of families) and their cars, dogs, etc. where largely working class and college students existed previously (perhaps requires rephrasing). 4. (Question 7) According to the New York State Critical Environmental Areas Fact Sheet, “CEAs are defined under subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g) of the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) regulations. Counties and municipalities may designate specific geographic areas within their boundaries as CEAs”. The According to the DECinfo Locator Map tool, the property is adjacent and upslope from Spring Run (a tributary of Loughberry Lake – drinking water supply < 700ft away), a New York State Wildlife Management Unit (code 5J), Bog Meadow Brook (HUC 12 Number 020200030405), an aquatic biological monitoring site located just feet away from the property, from a Saratoga Springs City Parkland, and within the NYS regulated MS4 district. The site is also located adjacent to and within the bounds of the DEC designated 100 and 500 ft wetland buffer areas, National Inventoried Wetland, and floodzone, as shown in the attached map produced using the Saratoga County parcel viewer. By all accounts, the area should be designated a Critical Environmental Area by the City of Saratoga. 5. (Question 8) The applicant acknowledges the action will result in an increase in traffic. The increase in traffic is of serious concern and could be mitigated by reducing the number of units, reducing the number of parking spaces, encouraging alternative modes of travel (especially considering the public transportation (bus stop and bike path) available). It is therefore not necessary to have above the recommended number of parking spaces. In fact, if anything, it would be good to see serious reduction in parking and impervious surfaces. According to their narrative, they state “We are proposing over the minimum parking spaces per unit ( Code 1.5 spaces per unit) based on past experiences of similar uses. The parking areas propose to contain approximately a total of 66 parking stalls ( 5 ADA accessible parking stalls) for both the condominiums and tenants of the apartment units.” This is an unnecessary action to permit more vehicles when less traffic would be desirable. As they note in their “trip generation analysis” there will be three (3) to five (5) times as much traffic coming from the site, taxing an already underdeveloped and overstressed transportation infrastructure. As they note, there are recent investments in pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation infrastructure, however, the infrastructure is lagging behind the already existing need and the proposed will only tax the system more instead of investing. The “concerned residents of excelsior” propose fewer units, fewer vehicles, and an investment in public infrastructure. 6. (Question 9) I would like to hear how the proposed action meets or exceeds the state energy code requirements when it is proposing more units that will fundamentally increase the burden on the system. No mention of new technologies is mentioned. Perhaps a variance would be more palatable if they demonstrated a greater benefit to the community and the environment than profit. 7. (Question 12) It is appreciated that the applicant submitted an online form to New York SHPO ultimately determining the “that the materials recovered do not represent an intact archaeological site” but it would be nice to know what those materials are and whether the City of Saratoga has an interest. 8. (Question 13) The proposed development would certainly alter existing wetlands and waterbodies. The proposed development does not illustrate any level of protection for the existing wetlands and waterbodies. Instead, we can visibly see the proposed action intends to develop “stormwater management areas” specifically to mitigate and alter current conditions that impact local wetlands and waterways. The applicant makes no attempt to describe the impact or their interest in mitigating impacts to public waterways. 9. (Question 17) The applicant acknowledges the stormwater discharge will occur, however, does not provide findings or studies to demonstrate that all of the increased stormwater will be contained on-site. In fact, it is quite likely that stormwater management will rely on existing infrastructure and create a greater burden than other surrounding properties. Will neighbors have to pay a higher tax when the system is inadequate to deal with the new development? 10. (Question 18) The applicant does not provide sufficient detail to eliminate the “impoundment of water” as part of their phase of construction or as part of their long-term stormwater management plan. 11. (Question 19) What evidence does the applicant have that the location has not been at some point a solid waste management facility? There has clearly been fill on the property to obtain elevation away from the brook, has that been tested? The intersection of Excelsior Avenue and East is the location of a brownfield. Industrial uses are found down the road on Excelsior. What documentation or history can they point to in order to demonstrate no contaminated fill will be exposed during development? Project Narrative 1. The General Project Overview begins with information that needs to be confirmed. As demonstrated earlier, the tax roll states there are 8 units, other accounts suggest there exist only 9 units, but here the applicant claims 10 units. An accurate base-line should be determined so as to consider the scope of alterations as it pertains to the variance request. It also incorrectly states that it is adjacent to an Institutional Education District, and does not account for being adjacent to public parkland (INST-PR). This may have been a typo but is a significant clarification to correct. 2. (Section 3.1- Roadways) – What is the justification for relocating the traffic pattern from the existing? Has a study been conducted to determine whether this will improve or reduce traffic safety in the area. There is great concern that curb cuts across an existing pedestrian walkway where it is not required is increasing potential risks to public safety. Additionally, what is the justification for exceeding required parking? Rather, we would like to see a reduction in parking and impervious space. 1 parking space (maybe even less) per unit seems justifiable when the site is located adjacent to pedestrian, bike, and public transit facilities. a. Need for clarification – on the provided site plan there are 76 parking stalls detailed, but in their narrative they state propose 66 parking stalls. Which is it? 3. (Section 3.2- Traffic) – Any resident of the neighborhood will tell you that both vehicular and pedestrian traffic have increased dramatically over the years with no improvements until the “green belt” bike path was placed over an existing sidewalk. The addition of the green-belt bike path along with the proposed will increase traffic significantly more raising concerns for public safety. Without pedestrian, bike, and road improvements to Excelsior Avenue and Excelsior Spring to divert or calm traffic, there is an already existing issue of safety that is going to be further exacerbated by this action. No variance or city approval should be provided until safety concerns and improvements are fully assessed and resolved. 4. (Section 3.6 – Wetlands) – While a letter may state not jurisdiction is being taken by the DEC or ACOE, the City of Saratoga must protect the wetlands, soils, waterways, and other public spaces impacted by this proposed development both on and off site. The proposed presents a significant risk to impacting these critical environmental areas. The narrative also states the spring run stream is off-site, however, some of the maps online and as they have indicated on their site plans, seems to cross the corner of their property. Clarification of this detail is required before a determination can be made. 5. (Section 3.8 – Soils) – Why were soil tests restricted only to the “upper portion of the parcel”? While the NRCS Web Soil Survey can be used as a guide, it is generalized and must be verified in the field as exemplified by this report and the wetland finding. More soil tests should be taken in the rear of the lot to determine the make up as those are the soils that will be disturbed and pose the most risk to the adjacent public space through erosion. 6. (Section 4- Area Variance) – Why can they not redesign the building dimensions to meet the minimum? In conclusion, the applicant has not demonstrated that the benefit the applicant stands to receive from the variance will outweigh any burden to health, safety and welfare that may be suffered by the community. The questions, inconsistencies, and proposed design should all be reevaluated and only return to the Planning Board when they have been resolved or a variance is no longer needed. I appreciate the consideration of my (our) concerns and hope this information is helpful in making a determination. Please feel free to reach out with any questions or if I have made any errors in my responses that require further clarification of my own. Thank you, Daniel Berheide 19 Excelsior Spring Ave.