The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20240190 28 Aletta Area Variance Lot Lines Public CommentFrom :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> Zimbra julia.destino@saratoga-springs.org Online Form Submittal: Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment Mon, May 06, 2024 12:27 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 Patricia Morrison Email Address patriciamariemorrison@gmail.com Business Name Field not completed. Address 67 Union Street City Saratoga Springs State NY Zip Code 12866 Phone Number 518-859-7347 Project Name 28 Aletta Street Area Variance Project Number Field not completed. Project Address 28 Aletta Street 5/6/24, 8:30 AM Zimbra https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=29474&tz=America/New_York 1/2 Comments This comment area is not accepting all my comments. They are cut off. Please see attached word document. Dear Zoning Board of Appeals, I favor the development of (2) of the (3) lots identified in the 28 Aletta Street Area Variance application, however (1) of the (3) lots does not qualify for an area variance and for this reason request the ZBA to deny the area variance application. I’d like to start by sharing some history and inaccuracies with the application. I’ll start with the history. In July 2023, the property owner purchased the single-family home with a large area of vacant land as part of the parcel. The owner could have foreseen the property's zoning regulations by pursuing due diligence and engaging in the zoning appeal process beforehand. Instead, the owner seeks to demolish the existing single-family home which is in good condition (see Exhibit A) to construct a two-family dwelling, claiming hardship. There is no hardship for Lot A. Not even a self-induced hardship. They are not seeking an area variance to modify an existing residence, the owner is looking to demolition a house and start over. The owner has two parcels that were part of the purchase that can more appropriately (with a minor variance) accommodate the building of a two-family home. The variance application misrepresents the present property's current use. It states “apartment building”. It is not an apartment building. It is a single-family home, built in 1898, on the tax map with the City and County as a single-family home. In 2023 when listed for sale it was listed as a single-family home. See Exhibit A with pictures of the home inside and out. This proposed development of a two-family house on Lot A is not in harmony with the lot size. It is excessive. Based on the questions in the application for an area variance, the applicant has provided vague answers and in some cases not answered the question. Question #1: Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved Attach Photo (optional)EXHIBIT A-28 Aletta Street Pictures.pdf Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 5/6/24, 8:30 AM Zimbra https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=29474&tz=America/New_York 2/2 Patty Morrison 67 Union Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 May 6, 2024 Dear Zoning Board of Appeals, I favor the development of (2) of the (3) lots identified in the 28 Aletta Street Area Variance application, however (1) of the (3) lots does not qualify for an area variance and for this reason request the ZBA to deny the area variance application. I’d like to start by sharing some history and inaccuracies with the application. I’ll start with the history. In July 2023, the property owner purchased the single-family home with a large area of vacant land as part of the parcel. The owner could have foreseen the property's zoning regulations by pursuing due diligence and engaging in the zoning appeal process beforehand. Instead, the owner seeks to demolish the existing single-family home which is in good condition (see Exhibit A) to construct a two-family dwelling, claiming hardship. There is no hardship for Lot A. Not even a self-induced hardship. They are not seeking an area variance to modify an existing residence, the owner is looking to demolition a house and star t over. The owner has two parcels that were part of the purchase that can more appropriately (with a minor variance) accommodate the building of a two-family home. The variance application misrepresents the present proper ty's current use. It states “apar tment building”. It is not an apartment building. It is a single-family home, built in 1898, on the tax map with the City and County as a single-family home. In 2023 when listed for sale it was listed as a single-family home. See Exhibit A with pictures of the home inside and out. This proposed development of a two-family house on Lot A is not in harmony with the lot size. It is excessive. Based on the questions in the application for an area variance, the applicant has provided vague answers and in some cases not answered the question. Question #1: Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other feasible means. Identify what alternatives to the variance have been explored (alternative designs, attempts to purchase land, etc.) and why they are not feasible. The answer: Several alternatives were analyzed as part of the design process. The proposed layout was preferred because it spreads the variances over the three proposed lots while maintaining the allowed density in the zone. The applicant has not identified any of the alternatives in their application and as such has not met this requirement. Question #3: Whether the variance is substantial. The answer given by the applicant “the required variances are not substantial” is not true. That statement is true for Lots B and C but not true for Lots A. Lots B and C need minor variances. Lot A needs a substantial variance because the lot is 25% too small for the proposed development. Lot A meets the minimum lot size minus 600 sf for the existing structure on the property which is in fine shape (see Exhibit A). Question #5: Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Explain. The answer: The proposed difficulty is self-created, however, due to the odd configuration of the parcels, there was no alternative. As previously stated the proposed density meets the intent of the zoning district. The objective for the questions in the ZBA Area Variance application is not only to meet a density requirement. If that were the case, the application would be short and to the point with one question. That question would be, “Does the proposed application meet zoning density requirements?” The answer that the request for an area variance meets the density requirement is skewed and does not tell the complete details of the situation. The reality of this application is Lot A is sized for a single-family dwelling and has a single-family home on it that is in good condition. Lots B and C with minor variances of 4.2’ each meet the lot size for a two-family home. This applicant does not have a hardship, not a self-induced hardship or otherwise other than they did not come before this board before purchasing the property. The fact is they want to take down a structure that meets the zoning requirement to put up a structure that does not meet the zoning requirement for financial reasons. I request the ZBA respect the neighbors, the neighborhood, and the UDO. All structures on the same side of the street as 28 Aletta Street are single-family structures, including 28 Aletta Street. They are 6 Aletta, 8 Aletta, corner of Aletta and Perry - 19 Perry and 18 Perry. The homes that touch the property are single-family homes. They are 19 Perry Street, 16 Perry Street, and 11 Perry Street. The homes directly across from the property on Schrade Lane are single-family homes. They are 35 Union Street, 43 Union Street, 47 Union Street, and 51 Union Street. Everyone can agree that Aletta Street needs a facelift, but cramming (3) (2) family structures doesn’t improve it. The property owner is interested in the development of obvious financial gain. I am asking this application be denied. The application is disingenuous, inaccurate, and most importantly doesn’t meet the zoning standards. Sincerely, Patricia Morrison EXHIBIT A: 28 Aletta Street Pictures 2023 Property Listing Description Property Details Property Overview as listed with Real Estate agent - 2023 Just a short walk to downtown Saratoga Springs and all that city living has to offer. Restaurants, shopping, theatre, public library and public transportation. This one story home has 2 bedrooms, 1 full bath , living room with wood burning fireplace and a laundry/mud room There is a Huge garage and a lot that can be subdivided. Great opportunity to be in town. Property is an estate and being sold AS IS. Everything in the garage must stay and is included as part of the sale. Picures