Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20220202 31-33 Marion Area Variance Public Comment (10)Online Form Submittal: Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Thu 7/25/2024 6:09 PM To: Julia Destino <Julia.Destino@saratoga-springs.org>; Susan Barden <Susan.Barden@saratoga-springs.org> 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 Planning Board Name Deborah LaCombe Email Address dgarrelts1@gmail.com Business Name Field not completed. Address 11 Marion Avenue City Saratoga Sprimgs State NY Zip Code 12866 Phone Number 5185845447 Project Name 31-33 Marion Avenue Maple Dell Project Number 20220202 Project Address 31-33 Marion Avenue Comments I am attaching a letter to the Planning Board as it reviews the Stewart's Corp. project at 31-33 Marion Avenue Attach Photo (optional)Letter to Planning Board.pdf Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 7/26/24, 8:50 AM Mail - Julia Destino - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADI5NDIzZGRiLTQwNjEtNGM1MS05ZmQxLTUyZTNkMzFiZDJiZQAQADuxbTvsJpZAqlf6rTckgDg%3D 1/1 To: Saratoga Springs City Planning Board: 7/25/2024 From: Deb LaCombe-Garrelts 11 Marion Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 518 584 5447 Re: 31-33 Marion Avenue Variance I listened and watched the Planning Board meeting and discussion of 7/18/24. This Planning Board was asked by The Zoning Board of Appeals to take lead on a SEQR determination. I was not aware that the ZBA asked the Planning Board for an advisory opinion on the variances sought by Stewart’s Corporation. However, there was some discussion about the large variances sought. If I am correct, the Planning Board must consider the intensity of development, non-conformity of development with the UDO and Zoning Code, and approve or deny any special use permit sought in a particular zone. You are expecting our comments. To Patricia Morrison, we are not unfamiliar with “the process” as members of the public. Your comments dismissing public comment and the neighbors input were quite insulting. We have read the 1973, 2012 zoning ordinances, The Comprehensive Plan, and UDO, and are competent in comprehending what is happening. I would like to clarify a few things first. 1. Ryan Rabideau has NOT had a discussion with me, my husband, nor the Marion Avenue-Maple Dell - Maple Avenue Neighborhood Association. I’m sorry to point out that Mark Pingle repeatedly stated that Ryan was “ working with the neighbors” , and Ryan did not correct him. In fact, Ryan had a conversation with one person who would not give their name, and did not represent the consensus of the neighbors or the Neighborhood Association. 2. History: Stewart’s took advantage of an error in the zoning regulations to expand 100 feet of commercial into a residential lot (UR-2). The ZBA denied this and on appeal Stewart’s won. We continue to object to that ruling and continue to assert that the zoning regulations were clear enough to deny them the variance of 100 feet into their adjacent residentially zoned lot. 3. Libby Clark, legal representative for Stewart’s Corp. stated in public at the March 4, 2024 ZBA meeting that she could NOT make a statement that there will be no further development north . 4. Mr. Rabideau now states that the northern property will be “forever wild” - but contingent on this project going forward. This is NOT a gift to the neighbors from Stewart’s for the following reason: a. The remaining acreage north of the current car wash is a residentially zoned district. Stewart’s Corp has already taken 100 feet and cannot take more. To suggest otherwise creates a situation where no zoning boundary line is sacred, and a business could buy several residential properties adjacent to a commercial one, and “at their discretion” move the boundary - first 100 feet, then another 100 feet etc… 5. The TRB zone that includes the proposed Stewart’s gas station and convenience store and the leased liquor store abuts the National Grid right of way, which is zoned as residential and always has been. That is the only sliver of property that separates the gas station from the Public Water Supply Protection Area to the southeast as seen on the City’s zoning map. 6. Stewart’s did submit an old agreement with National Grid dated 2015, that was valid for 5 years and could be renewed for 5 years. The updated renewal should be entered into the document files. 7. A vehicle refueling station is permitted in TRB zoning with a special use permit - allowable or disallowed by the Planning Board . (Table 2 Use Schedule) 8. The current Mobil Station is a legal “grandfathered in” non-conforming structure and use. It is acknowledged that the 1969 approval for this parcel (at that time referred to as parcel 4-B-2B) was granted before the requirements regarding proximity to abuting residential areas was enacted - as in 2012 Zoning Ordinance Section 6.3.3. 9. The property line that until recently was associated with the Mobil gas station is the boundary around parcel 166.5-4-1.3. Once the property was subdivided into separate parcels for the gas station, car wash, and residential parcels, any grandfathering claim onto parcels other than that of the gas station would have been severed. Recombining separate parcels under single ownership should not allow a property owner to assert broader grandfathered use rights that were previously severed. UDO Article 19: Non-conformity: E. Replacement In-Kind Exemption: A nonconforming structure may be replaced in-kind. Only the pre-existing nonconformity may be maintained and may not be increased in degree ; all other zoning district standards must be met. However, if the structure’s foundation is removed, the legal nonconforming status is null and void and the structure must meet all district standards. F. Required Build-To Zone or Build-To Line Exemption As of the effective date of this Ordinance, when an existing structure does not conform to the required build-to zone or build-to line of the applicable district, the structure is deemed exempt from that standard and may be expanded or altered without having to conform to build-to zone or build-to line of the district until the structure’s building footprint is expanded by 50% or more. If expansions to the structure are incremental, this is calculated as the sum total of all expansions that occur after the effective date of this Ordinance. Once the principal structure is demolished, deemed conforming status is null and void. In the 2012 Zoning Ordinance, a Vehicle Fueling Station is a defined term, as follows: VEHICLE FUELING STATION : A facility that is used for the sale of motor vehicle fuel and accessories , and shall not include a car wash or motor vehicle repair. (please see last page for further documentaon) 2012 Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.0 Nonconforming Uses Structures and Lots: 5.3.4 EXTENSION OR EXPANSION OF USE A non-conforming use shall not be extended or physically expanded. Extension or expansion of a non-conforming use shall include expansion of the area or volume occupied by a non-conforming use, including expansion into previously underutilized, vacant or newly constructed space, or the increase of any parking related to the use. 5.4.3 RENOVATION, ALTERATION OR REPAIR Any non-conforming structure may be renovated, altered or repaired within its present dimensions. 5.4.4 EXTENSION OR EXPANSION OF STRUCTURE A. A non-conforming structure may be extended or expanded provided the proposed extension or expansion does not violate any dimensional requirements other than the current nonconformity. B. A non-conforming structure may not be extended or expanded to increase nonconformity unless dimensional relief is granted by an area variance from the ZBA. 6.3.3 Vehicle Fueling Stations In any district where vehicle fueling stations are permitted, the following shall apply. A. No fuel pump shall be located closer than 20 feet from any property line B. No property line associated with a vehicle refueling station shall be located within: 1. 500 feet of a school, park, playground, fire staon, public library, theater, religious instuon, or other place of public assembly as defined by the NYS Uniform Fire Prevenon and Building Code 2. 250 feet of ingress or egress ramps to limited access highways 3. 250 feet of an abung residenal district When Stewart’s combined properties for the purposes of expanding and constructing a new convenience store, gas station, and tenant commercial building, The property line associated with the gas station also moved to the north 100 feet into the adjacent residentially zoned property to the north. At the September 26, 2022 ZBA meeting Stewart’s was directed to address the questions raised about the property line associated with the gas station under the current proposal. In their letter to the ZBA dated December 2, 2022, Stewart’s completely fails to address the question about property lines at all. Rather, Stewart’s Corp. makes reference only to the placement of gas pumps, and incorrectly quotes section 6.6.3, confounding ZO Sect 6.3.3-A with 6.3.3-B-3, which speaks to the property line associated with the gas station, not the location of the pumps with respect to an abutting residential district. Under the current proposed project, Stewart’s is proposing to: a) Construct structure(s) directly associated with sale of motor vehicle fuel and accessories that span the property line between the Mobil gas station and current Car Wash parcels. b) Increase the size of the structure by >50% c) Remove the foundation of the non-conforming structure/use and rebuild it. The Planning Board must address this issue prior to any other action. It is our position that the requirements of section 6.3.3 expressly forbid the proposed project to be approved, and should be rejected by the City Planning department as not allowed. For these reasons we respectfully request that any consideration of the area variance request, including efforts by the Planning Board regarding SEQR be adjourned until such time as the question of the property line associated with the vehicle fueling station is resolved. Respectfully, Deborah LaCombe-Garrelts Girard Garrelts 11 Marion Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Documentation - definition of a vehicle fueling station: A historical review of the language of the Zoning Ordinance dang back to 1973 shows that the general definion of a vehicle fueling staon is NOT limited to the locaon of pumps and fuel storage. 1990 Zoning Ordinance (which was in effect at the me Stewart ’s bought the separate gas staon and car wash properes). 1973 Zoning Ordinance: While the wording of the definion of a vehicle fueling staon was slightly modified (simplified) in 2012, the fundamental definion did not change. Further, a review of the language of the UDO clearly shows a different meaning, with a change of wording from “sale” to “stored and dispersed”. The definion was also substanally altered to include ancillary retail uses. UDO: BBB. Gas Staon 1. Definion - An establishment where fuel for vehicles is stored and dispersed from fixed equipment into the fuel tanks of motor vehicles. A gas staon may also include ancillary retail uses , and solar and/or electric charging staons. Stewart’s is welcome to submit their project proposal under the UDO, but they have chosen to submit under the ZO, thus the definions of a vehicle fueling staon under the ZO must be used for this applicaon.