Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20220202 31-33 Marion Ave Public Comment 03/03/2024 Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Cc: Aneisha Samuels-Sanford, Senior Planner Patrick Cogan, Zoning officer City of Saratoga Springs 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Re: Project#20220202 33 Marion Ave In protest to Stewart's proposal to demolish and rebuild/expand commercial business on Marion Avenue: Specifically their request for an Area Variance Comments: My husband and I are members of the Maple Avenue, Marion Avenue, Maple Dell Neighborhood Association. We live at 11 Marion Avenue. We strongly protest Stewart's request for a zoning area variance of 80% to place a proposed convenience store within 8 feet of Marion Avenue. Additionally, we object to the scale of the project entirely. Stewart's Variance Application does not adequately or effectively answer several questions which are required. Question 2: Whether the requested variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. Stewarts answers: The proposed activities mirror the current activities on site or within project corridor and have previously been considered for SEQR review by the City Council during PUD review and received a Negative Declaration. Additionally, Stewart's has lessened the intensity of the proposed activities from what was originally considered and that summary offered in separate correspondence. Our response: Stewart's fails to defend that the requested variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. Instead, their defense compares the present site plan with a PUD that they have previously submitted and were denied, rather than addressing the question as their current project impacts the neighborhood. This answer alone should have sent this variance application back to the drawing board. However, the following concerns will address what our response is to Question 2: Light Pollution: Current lighting for the gas station and car wash: There is a lighted canopy, the interior lights of a small gas station building, and a lighted car wash sign facing north and south. The business lights extend only to the northern edge of the current carwash monument sign. The carwash business closes at 8pm, and the sign goes off. The proposed plan places three illuminated signs, within 8 feet of the road, facing west and projecting light towards the neighbors houses across the street. These signs are illuminated at night creating bright lights which would come into their living rooms. Additionally an internally lighted monument sign will be placed at the northern edge of the complex for not only the car wash, but the additional rental space. Depending on what tenant rents the proposed 3,180 sq. ft space, all those illuminated sign lights will all be on until 11 pm, every day. The western elevation plans show an entrance to the new gas station/convenience store facing the houses opposite on Marion Avenue. All interior lights are highly visible through the large windows of the structure to the neighbors and contribute further to the effect of keeping our street highly lighted in the evenings until 11 pm every day. This creates an extreme negative change in the character of our neighborhood, and imposes hardship on the owners and residents opposite, and adjacent to this site by limiting our right to enjoyment, privacy, and use of our properties. Traffic: The traffic study commissioned by Stewart's, by Creighton Manning is flawed in that its overall conclusion again compares the results of their study to the failed PUD previously denied. Conflating, in error, the results with nonsense numbers. Additionally, we object to the conclusions of the traffic study because it uses traffic volume and patterns in February, and not during peak tourist hours in the summer- The property is in fact designated Tourist Related Business. The results of the traffic study conclude new traffic to the area would be increased by 71 new trips per peak hour in the morning, and 115 new trips per peak hour in the evening (in February). Which, we argue, is a substantial increase. The traffic volume increase during the summer/tourist months would undoubtedly cause great difficulty in navigating this area of Marion Avenue. Secondly, It is not only customers coming into and out of the lot onto Marion Avenue, but large trucks (Stewart's Tanker 62.5 feet in length, and Single Unit Truck 39.5 feet in length) as shown in their submission of site plans-Landscape- Photometric & Vehicle Routing Plans, used to bring commercial goods to the gas station/convenience store and supply the new tenant. We argue that due to the enlarged volume of the new buildings, there will be substantially more trips in and out of the one entrance and exit onto Marion Avenue. Those new trips are substantial increases and create a negative change in the character of our neighborhood, and are a detriment to neighboring properties. Furthermore, the submitted traffic study makes the assumption that the existing commercial businesses on Maple Dell go away. Regardless of whether Stewarts moves their own store to Marion Ave, there is nothing in the proposal about any allowed use changes on Maple Dell. As seen in many other locations across upstate NY, where Stewart's builds a new store, the old store continues to be commercial/retail and will continue to draw traffic. For these reasons, we object to the Variance Request submitted by Stewart's Corporation because they have not provided any evidence that Question 2 has been answered accurately. Question 3: Whether the requested variance is substantial. Stewart's states that the variance is not substantial based on simultaneous consideration of the Gateway 2 Overlay, the current location of the building and the deviation of proposed and current as directed to Code Enforcement Officer. Our response is: Of course an 80% variance is substantial! In his letter to Stewarts from January 2022, the zoning officer Patrick Cogan states that even under the UDO, which was intended to harmonize the inconsistencies of the zoning ordinance, the required front setback is 25', which he states is reasonable, thus implying that a front setback less than 25' is not reasonable. Stewart's reply uses a strategy of stating it is trying to conform to Gateway Overlay guidelines, rather than adhering to the Zoning Ordinance front setback rules. The zoning ordinance rules are a must, the Gateway overlay 50% build out not. Zoning regulations for setbacks where a commercial entity abuts a residential district is 40 feet front setback from the road. Question 4: Whether the variance will have adverse physical or environmental impacts on the neighborhood or district. Stewart's answer. "Scaling the project down, provides less intensity which should be favorable to maintaining elements of the surrounding neighborhood. As an example of the current intensity for the neighborhood, the latest NYSDOT traffic data report shows that Marion Ave in this section has an AADT tra c volume of 12, 279 as of 2019." Stewarts answers by comparing the present site plan as a scaled down project with less intensity than their failed PUD, previously submitted and denied, rather than addressing the question as their current project impacts the neighborhood or district. They cite numbers from traffic data from 2019 NYS DOT at the intersection of Route 50 and Marion Avenue, which has nothing to do with answering Question 4. Litter: Our neighborhood can expect much more paper garbage, plastic and glass bottles thrown from cars by customers of Stewart's and the Liquor Store to end up on the street and in our yards. These buildings and the car wash are all abutting the conservation zone and all within the Loughberry Lake watershed. We argue negative impacts of litter in the area will be an adverse environmental impact. Past performance by Stewart's indicates that there will be no effort to prevent or clean up this pollution. When a complaint was made to Chuck Marshall about mattresses, rugs, chairs, and a top carrier left by U Haul renters in the treed lot, nothing was cleaned up by Stewart's. Location of Car Wash: The new location for the car wash in the conservation zone and abutting a residential district without set side setback not only requires a special permit in the TRB, but the location does not abide by the side setback rules in the zoning ordinance. This question requires a determination from the zoning officer, and makes a separate variance application to the ZBA necessary. For these reasons, we object to the Variance Request by Stewart's Corporation because they have not provided any evidence that Question 4 has been answered accurately. Question 5: Whether the alleged difficulty is self created. Stewarts answers it is not self created because of"discrepancy between Section 2.3 requirements, overlay guidelines, and nonconforming structure." Our response is Cause and Effect: As stated in his January 2022 letter to Stewarts, the zoning officer Patrick Cogan: "The area and bulk requirements of the TRB zoning district would control over a recommended design guideline of the Gateway Overlay. Other requirements of the Gateway Design Districts are identified as mandatory. The 50% build out is not." The difficulty was created when Stewart's chose to use overlay build out guidelines (not mandatory) in order to justify building a group of (>7,000 sq. ft.) large commercial structures which could only be done by building close to the road. They are choosing to build these large commercial entities on this lot, rather than keeping modest commercial buildings in keeping with the neighborhood character. We argue that is a self-created hardship. Non-Conformance: Stewarts also cites non-conformance of the existing gas station structure is creating a hardship for them but does not say how. We do know that the zoning regulation Section 5.3.4 is very clear that if a non-conforming structure is demolished and rebuilt, it may not be expanded in size and volume, which includes expanding into newly created space. The new gas station/convenience store is that newly created and enlarged space. For these reasons, we object to the Variance Request- 80% relief from the front set back that has been submitted by Stewart's Corporation because they have not provided any evidence that Question 5 has been answered accurately. We ask the Zoning Board to reject this Area Variance request outright. T nk you, Deborah L Co e-Garrelt ) Girard Garrelts 11 Marion Avenue, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 J RAJ The Saratoga County Court of Appeals has allowed Stewart's Corp. to expand into the neighboring residentially zoned lot by 100 feet, which then expands the TRB zoning designation 100 feet north. The zoning ordinance for TRB requires a 40' side setback when building a commercial entity on a lot that abuts a residential lot. The zoning regulat+on (Table 3: Area and Bulk Schedule) for TRB lists: • 40 foot front lot setback; • 25 foot rear lot setbacks * 50 foot if abutting a residential district • 20 foot side lot setbacks *40 foot each side if abutting a residential district These setbacks are required to protect the residential properties and the future use of the residential properties Stewart's Corp. owns on the East side of Marion Avenue. Stewart's plan as it is shown in their presentation shows the car wash sitting up to the 100' TRB extension, with no setback to the abutting residential area. The legislative intent of the Zoning Ordinance is clear. A setback is required. Just as the TRB district can be construed to extend 100', so can all the requirements also be construed as extended.