Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190604 Cluett House Bed and Breakfast Correspondance (10) To: City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board, Mr. TorpeyChair ~- / 0n — « HY Frorn: Jennifer L. K�cK4ahon / jenniferlmcmabon7@gmail.com Sn ^° A��r 820,fg Date: 3epternber13, ZO2g ' ay Re: Application for Permanent Special Use Permit for "Neighborhood Bed Breakfast" - Cluett House Bed and Breakfast (Robin Lauder LLC) Dear Mr. Torpey and Members of the Planning Board, I am writing with regards to the application made for a special use permit (SUP) by Robin Lauder LLC in order to establish a neighborhood bed and breakfast at 2 Clement Avenue. 1 was one of individuals who spoke in objection to this application at the July 25, 2019 meeting and I also co-signed a written request that your board r 'ect the application, which is contained in the record 1 write to thank the board for hearing the concerns of the public on this matter, for delaying the vote, and for extending the period for public commentary on this issue. Given that the period for public comment remains open, I would like to follow-up on some of the comments made at July 25, 2019 meeting. At the July 25 meeting, Mr. Toohey, counsel for the applicant, Robin Lauder LLC, apologized for his client's decision to put the property into use as a seasonal, nightly Air BnB type rental prior to obtaining any official approval for such unsanctioned commercial use in a residential UR-1 zone. He admitted that this use led to multiple problems include noise complaints, unauthorized foot traffic of guests on neighbors' property, and issues with parking. He explicitly characterized his client's action as a "mistake" and communicated an "apo|og[yl" onthepartofhisc|ientbothtothebnmrdandthcpub1ic- Myfather, JohnLMcMahon, aresidentat the |ocationforty'fiveyears, |ivesdirect|y across State Street from the 2 Clement Ave property. Less than 24 hours after Mr. Toohey's apologies for the ^mnistake" of unauthorized use, I personally observed a large group of guests congregating on the porch in the evening hours and at least four cars were parked on site (7/26/19). Guests have appeared regularly since then, including another sizeable group of guests and five cars on August 7. Not only do these activities suggest the sorts of impact that will occur if the application is approved, I question how the board can take an apology for unlicensed use seriously when that exact same use is continued after the fact. The fact is that Robin Lauder LLC purchased property with the intention to use it in a manner for which it is not zoned. That made the purchase and the associated commercial venture a risk. As counsel for a neighbor on State Street stated at the July 25 meeting, it would have been prudent to make the purchase of the property contingent on the approval. However, Robin Lauder LLC did not do this. Instead, Robin Lauder LLC purchased the residential property and immediately put it to commercial use without any notification to, or the permission of, the Planning Board. Apart from the applicant's desire for commercial profit, Robin Lauder LLC has produced no positive argument for the proposed use in the application (as required by the zoning guidelines). No needs assessment was provided to establish that sufficient demand exists for additional short-term occupancy housing in the city to justify a SUP in a residential zone; no evidence was provided that a need exists for historical preservation of the residence. Presumably neither was provided because neither is true. The public has, however, provided ample evidence to demonstrate that granting this permit would adversely affect community character and public safety, as well as heighten noise,traffic, and stress on infrastructure. At least 26 individuals have gone on the record objecting to this application. As you know, the City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Ordinance Section 7.1.3.B specifies that special use permits are to be "limited to [theirs own facts" and similar variances are not to have any "precedential effect entitling...similar use." Rather, the board is to consider the "adverse impacts on the surrounding properties and community character''/Zoning7.1.l\ andwve)ghtheseagainstanyposft|veargunnentsrnadebythe applicant. The board is to consider the impact of a permanent special use permit with regards to "'the compatibility of use with the neighborhood and community character"(7.1.3.A.4) and the board is empowered to deny applications when the proposed uses are incompatible with the neighborhood and its character. This brings me to comments made by planning a board member at the close of the meeting and subsequent to the offering of comments on July 25, 2019 by Mr. Toohey and members of the public. Since it is the content of the claims that concern me, not the specific person who made them, I will not identify the board member, but I can do so if needed, and I believe the comments are available in the video. The board member indicated two things to which I would like to respond: • That he felt the City Council had already acted to allow commercial ventures like the one proposed by the applicant in residential zones and that therefore that it was really more appropriate for objectors to such ventures to seek changes in city policy rather than petition the planning board. • That he felt it was potentially unfair for the board to consider the appeals of a specific neighborhood community that has shown itself uniquely able to unify and speak against an application when other communities might not have the same capacity for collaborative action. While I respect the board member and appreciate his serviI have the following objections: • The fact that the City Council has permitted some commercial ventures in historically residential areas does not imply ALL ventures are or should be approved. Indeed, if this was the case, no application for SUP would be needed, and no board approval would be required. Rather than absolve the planning board of responsibility, the council's approval of exceptions to the exclusion of commercial operations from residential zones heightens the responsibility of the planning board, specifically their responsibility to consider each and every individual application on its merits and weigh those applications against the expressed interests of the community and the long- term impact on the character of the area. • Multiple members of the community surrounding the 2 Clement Avenue property have spoken on this matter. Indeed, to date, apart from the applicant, not a single neighbor/resident has come forward to advocate on behalf of the project whereas at least 26 have opposed it. While I wholly appreciate the board member's concern for underrepresented voices in the community, I fail to follow his logic that it might be unfair for the board to 11hear" the concerns of an existing group on the basis of the silence of some hypothetical other, particularly one wholly independent from this proceeding. In his comments, the board member was clearly not alluding to some unheard group on this specific matter; he was suggesting that it might be unfair to listen to the voices of the residents surrounding 2 Clement because other residents in other cases might not speak regarding other actions. I disagree. The board is charged with the task of determining "the compatibility of [proposed use with the neighborhood and community character"(7.13.A.4); who better to offer insight regarding the neighborhood and the impact on community character than the members of that community, many of whom have resided in the area for decades? Arguably, the official requirement to notify adjacent residents of SUP applications and the formal opportunity for public commentary are parts of the planning board's proceedings precisely because it is understood that these individuals are uniquely qualified to speak on the matter of impact. To deny consideration of the community opinion would represent the board's forfeiture rather than the fulfillment of its responsibility under the zoning guidelines. In closing, this property was clearly purchased to gain a commercial use in an area zoned as residential (UR-1) While granting approval would certainly provide a benefit to the applicant, no positive argument has been provided that doing so serves the public or community interest. Rather, over two-dozen people have attested to the serious potential for adverse impact on adjacent property owners and community character. Legitimate concerns have also been raised regarding public safety, including that of children, and strain on infrastructure. No legitimate cause exists for the board to grant a benefit to a new owner, Robin Lauder LLC, an owner who imprudently elected to purchase a property for a commercial use in an area for which that use is not permitted, one who has attested having no interest in being a resident at the property, and one who has brazenly persisted in putting said property to unauthorized commercial use both prior to and during the period under which the application for SUP was 5ubject to review. I respectfully request that the planning board deny Robin Lauder LLC's application for a SUP at 2 Clement Avenue. There is no demonstrable need for a bed and breakfast in this area and multiple adjacent residents, and many others in the surrounding community, have come forward to oppose it. Granting this application, even under temporary terms, would cause irrevocable damage to the character of the community surrounding 2 Clement Avenue. Moreover, it would send a message to other developers that they can disregard zoning requirements when considering commercial ventures because permission can be had after the fact. Respectfully, Jennifer L. McMahon, MA, PhD. Daughter of John L. McMahon, 2 First St., Saratoga Springs NY 12866 9/18/20 19 Zimbra Zimbra jennifer1 merriman@saratogasprings.org ______-____—____' FW: SUP #2 Clement Street From :Thomas BUrklV <trhUrNV@DVCap.[[.cO0M> Tue, Sep 17/ )D19 08:03 PM Subject : FW: SUP #2 Clement Street To X '2nnife[ merriman <'eDDiferiOle[[im@D@S8Fatoga- SDriDgs.OFg:~ Jennifer, Thanks for your return call. The attached is what was sent to the Board, through you, Saturday afternoon. The reason for my call this morning was a concern that I did not list my address (45 Greenfield Avenue, Saratoga Springs NY) on the correspondence. Thanks, Tom Sent from Mail for Windo vs 10 /ITT /TO 2OL~� SEP 1 From: Thomas Burkly Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2019 2:47 PM To: jennifermerriman@saratoga-springsiorg Subject: SUP #2 Clement Street City of Saratoga Springs, Planning Board Mark Torpey, Chairman Re: Application for Permanent Special Use Permit • "NcighborhoodBedandBreakfast^ CJuet House Bed and Breakfast (Robin Lauder LLC) Dear Mr. Torpey: \ was present atthe July Z5thmeeting but amnunable toattend the September 1y~^'_�h meeting. I received a copy of the letter from Jennifer Mc Mahon to you and the Board on the Special Use Permit for 2 Clement Street and wish to express my agreement specifically with the conclusion that the proposed use of the property does not conform with the requirements of UR-1 zone and the Special Use Permit should be denied. If for some reason the Planning Board should approve this non-conforming use the issues of parking, drainage and others raised at the July 25th hearing should be addressed. More specifically the repurposing of the property must address the need to contain all drainage emanating from the property including surface and ground water to the site or piped to storm sewers in the area. Respectfully Submitted, Thomas C. Buddy Sent from 1Y1II for Windows 10 hupa:xmmaroozoa-uprings.org/mpnntnensaoor/d=soaa88dz=Amenoe/mevyom 1x2