The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20230087 85 Nelson Use Variance NOD �fOG, CITY OF SARATOGA Gage Simpson,Chair Q �A Brad Gallagher,Vice Chair !�d Cheryl Grey SPRINGS Emily Bergmann ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Shafer Gaston 1 = Brendan Dailey CITY BALL-474 BRoADwAY 7ohnDaley,Alternate PORATVD 191� SARATOGA SPRINGS,NEw YORK 12866 Alice Smith,Alternate 518-587-3550 W W W.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG #20230087 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Theodore J. Waite, III 85 Nelson Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 85 Nelson Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs,New York being tax parcel number 179.21-2-19 on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicant having applied for a use variance under the Unified Development Ordinance of said City to permit a two-family residence in an Urban Residential-2 (UR-2)District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on March 27, 2023 through September 25, 2023. In consideration of the need to demonstrate unnecessary hardship, I move that a use variance to permit a two-family residence in the UR-2 District, as per the submitted plans, be approved for the following reasons: Background The applicant purchased the property in 2013 and indicated that at that time he understood the property was a lawful three-family residence based upon his review of the tax bills from the City classifying it as a three-family residence. The applicant learned that the three-family use was unlawful under the City Zoning Ordinance (and now Unified Development Ordinance) when he sought a permit from the City to undertake repairs at the Property. The applicant previously sought and was denied a use variance for the property for use as a three- family residence in 2022. The present application for a use variance for a two-family residence is a new and separate application based upon additional materials and information. Use Variance Criteria 1. The Applicant has demonstrated that he cannot realize a reasonable financial return on his initial investment for any permitted use on the property. The applicant purchased the property for $801,500 in a private sale in 2013. Although the applicant has not listed the residence for sale, a valuation of the property provided by a real estate professional states the sales price as a single- family home would be $1,118,975. The cost of conversion to a single-family home would be $450,000 for a total investment of$1,251,500. Therefore, the cost of investment after conversion to a single-family home would exceed the potential sales price of the home. If the applicant were to sell the residence "as is", the sales price would be far less to account for the cost to convert the three-family dwelling to a single-family home to comply with zoning requirements. Page 1 of 3 The applicant has shown that the property generated rental income of$821,501 from 2013 to 2021, with total expenses of$729,210,leaving a profit of$92,291.These figures provided by the applicant are for the year-round rentals of the middle and rear unit of the residence, plus the seasonal rental of the front unit, which front unit is the residence of the applicant. The use variance at issue will eliminate the middle unit as a rental property, leaving only the rear and front unit. While the Board acknowledges that the applicant realized some profit over the 8 years of rental of the property, it does not entirely offset the cost of converting the home to a single-family residence or allow the applicant to realize a reasonable return on the property. Conversion to other uses of the property allowed in the district, including bed and breakfast and rooming house, would also prevent the applicant from realizing a reasonable return as the applicant would incur added expenses to renovate and reconfigure the structure to be suitable for these uses as well. The structure is uniquely laid out with the garage bisecting the structure and entirely separating the front and rear units, with a small unit above the garage. Additionally, there is no interior connections among the units and there is inconsistency among the levels and heights of the structure. 2. The Board does find sufficient evidence that the applicant's hardship is unique to this property and does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood. The Board notes that the applicant has provided information on nearby properties, showing a mix of multi-family homes and single- family homes in the area. However, the applicant has demonstrated that the hardship is distinct to this property. The physical layout of the property is unique and would make conversion to a single- family residence, or any other allowable use, difficult and costly. Specifically,the attached garage is located in the center of the structure completely separating what is now the front and rear units with the third unit above the garage. The applicant indicates that there are various levels and heights between portions of the structure and there are no interior connections among the units. The applicant has indicated that the small unit above the garage may easily be converted to storage space by removing the kitchen facilities at a nominal cost for conversion to the two-family use now under consideration by the Board. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Two-family residences can be found in the immediate neighborhood and it is not unusual for multi-family units to exist in this close proximity to the Saratoga Race Track. The Board notes that although there were public comments in objection to the application for a three- family residence,there were fewer in regards to a two-family residence. The Board also finds that a two-family residence is more consistent with the essential character of the neighborhood as compared to the three-family use that existed on the property for many years. A two-family use is consistent with the essential character of this neighborhood. 4. The applicant has demonstrated that the hardship has not been self-created. The property was converted to and being used as a three-family residence prior to the applicant's ownership. The applicant states that he was unaware that use of the premises as a three-family was not permitted at the time of his purchase. The applicant has stated this was a private purchase and that he did not use a real estate attorney. The applicant notes that prior to purchasing the property, he relied on tax bills from the City, which indicated that this was a multi-family property. He further notes that he has a record from the time before the purchase indicating the property to be a"2-3 family year- Page 2 of 3 round residence." Based upon his understanding that this was a lawful three-family, the applicant indicated that he made a substantial investment in the property and obtained a mortgage loan to purchase the property. Additionally, the configuration of the interior and exterior of the property is the same as when the applicant purchased the property in 2013. There is no indication in this record that the applicant created or contributed to the alleged hardship. In fact, the unlawful three-family use was only brought to the City's attention when the applicant sought a permit before undertaking repairs at the property. The Board finds that it was reasonable for the applicant to believe the three-family use was lawful under these circumstances and he acted in good faith based upon his understanding. Conclusion The applicant has demonstrated an unnecessary hardship by meeting all four of the use variance criteria. For this reason,the use variance application is approved. It is so moved. Dated: October 23, 2023 Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 7 (G. Simpson, C, Grey, S. Gaston, B. Dailey, B. Gallagher, E. Bergmann, A. Smith) NAYES: 0 This variance shall expire 18 months following the filing date of such decision unless the necessary building permit has been issued and actual construction begun as per the Unified Development Ordinance. 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, seven members of the Board being present. } SIGNATURE: 10/26/2023 CHAIR DATE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNTS DEPT. Page 3 of 3