HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190604 Cluett House Bed and Breakfast Correspondance (6) 7/2512019 Zimbra
Zimbra jenniferimerrirnan@saratoga-springs.org
Objection to Permanent Special Use Permit for 2 Clement Avenue
From Jennifer McMahon <jenniferimcmahon7@gmail.com> Thu, Jul 25, 2019 03:32 PM
Subject : Objection to Permanent Special Use Permit for 2 Clement
Avenue
To :jennifer merriman <jennifer.merriman@saratoga-
? .r 17 nfl
springs.org> u
July 25 Planning Board Meeting JUL 22 is
To: Planning Board,
Please consider the following:
Re: Item on 7/25/19 Agenda: Application for Permanent Special Use Permit for "Neighborhood bed
and breakfast" - Cluett House Bed and Breakfast (Robin Lauder LLC).
Application requests a permanent special use permit to facilitate establishment of 5-unit B&B with
resident host (6 unit) in Urban Residential Zone at 2 Clement Avenue. Plan requires addition of off
street parking spaces to accommodate additional parking requirements.
Application cites Greenfield Condominium Project (45 Greenfield), formerly the Home of the Good
Shepherd Nursing Facility, and Annandale Apartments (245 Clinton) as instances of in kind use
establishing this application for variance as consistent with several existing properties in this zone.
We have the following objections to this application:
1. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Ordinance Section 7.1.3.B specifies that a request for
special use permit should be "limited to its own facts" and that prior granting of similar
variances "shall have no precedential effect entitling or implying...similar use." Thus, the
evaluation should not consider any precedent set by these properties, but should review the
application on its own merits. We contend insufficient evidence of this sort is supplied.
2. In point of fact, even if these properties could be considered, neither the Annandale nor
Greenfield apartments, is an in-kind property. While they are multi-unit dWeilings, both offer
permanent residence opportunities, not temporary vacation housing; a kind of use for which
there is no real precedent in this area, and whose addition would have "adverse impacts on
the surrounding properties and community character"(Zoning 7.1.1).
3. Apart from citing the aforementioned properties as precedent in support of the requested
use, there is little additional justification in the application warranting the granting of this
variance. No evidence is given that strong demand for additional short-term occupancy
housing exists in the area. Indeed, the increase in available hotel accommodations throughout
the city suggests otherwise. No property of this sort exists in the zone; adding one would
irrevocably alter the neighborhood, and might well encourage additional requests, further
impacting the residential character of the community.
4. The one justification offered suggests the granting of the variance could ensure the
protection of a large older residence from "potential deterioration" (Application). While this
argument could be made in the 1970's when large residences such as the previously
https://m.saratoga-springs.orgihiprintmessage?id=893358az.AmericaiNew_York 1/2
7125/2019 umbra
mentioned Annandale Mansion were saved from decay through this kind of action, there is no
evidence that any such risk exists for this property. On the contrary, it is in excellent repair and
has consistently served as a private one family residence for its history, appreciating
significantly in value during that time. Thus, there is no evidence that the granting of a special
use permit is required for preservation purposes.
5. The zoning ordinance Section 7.1.3.A.4 requires the planning board to consider the impact
of a permanent special use permit with regards to "the compatibility of use with the
neighborhood and community character." This use is wholly inconsistent with the
neighborhood and its community character, an area where single-family residences
predominate and have predominated historically.
6. Furthermore, the application suggests that there will be "no increase on noise and traffic"
and that the granting of the permit will neither require nor place increased demand on
infrastructure. However, it is fundamentally contrary to reason to argue that increasing the
standordoccupancyofapropertyfrornasing|e'tarn||ynesidence, vvhereonernightassurne4
individual members, to a S-unit facility with a resident host (which, at occupancy, would
accommodate at least 12-14 persons) would have no impact on noise, traffic, or use of public
utilities. Indeed, one could expect a proportionate increase in all. This would have an adverse
impact not only on the community character, but also on the quality of life of for those
occupying surrounding properties, and on the market value of those properties. Clearly, the
fact that the application requests the addition of off-street parking indicates there is indeed an
anticipation of increased traffic in conjunction with proposed use of the site.
7. The property was clearly purchased to gain a commercial use in an area zoned as
residential. Given the potendal for adverse impact on adjacent property owners, some of
whom are long time residents, and the adverse impact on community character—both present
and future—there is insufficient cause to grant a benefit to a new owner who elected to
purchase a property for a commercial use in an area for which that use is not permitted.
Our family home (2 First Street) is across State Street from the residence at 2 Clement Avenue. We
have enjoyed living in this neighborhood for 45 years. We, like many other neighbors, are deeply
concerned about the adverse impact that special permitting at this site will have on this quiet
residential community. We respectfully request the planning board to deny the application in order to
ensure the preservation of the community atmosphere that has and continues to draw families,
businesses, and visitors to Saratoga Springs.
Respectfully,
John L. McMahon, Jill P. McMahon, Jacqueline A. McMahon-Smith, and Jennifer L. McMahon
hups;i1m.saramoa-springs.orgm/pmnmneuuaoo?m~esoas8az=Amerinm/mmw_vom z/�