Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210781 Trimarchi Drive Way - 115 Circular Street Public CommentFOR YOUR CONSIDERATION DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Reply to the May 14, 2025 meeting Submitted by David W. Appel, Jr 117 Circular Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: That is the comparison reference that is being used. Question: why not “Context of the City” or even “Context of the County”? Answer: because the further away something is from whatever it is being compared to, the less meaningful any comparison or context is. Distance diminishes any meaningful comparison. Question: would “Context of the Neighbor” or “Context of the Adjacent” magnify the context? Answer: absolutely yes. This is the exact reason why photos of the neighboring properties is a required essential element of the application, complete with a box to check off as included. They are essential to consider context. RD @ 1:41:45 “compatibility and appropriate. Compatibility is the action word”. CB @ 1:30”36 “(questions) context” PHOTOS: Color photos of neighboring properties are a requirement of a complete application for a change in surface of a driveway. There is a box to check off on the application to ensure their inclusion for a complete application. They are an essential element for compatibility and context. RD @ 1:32:10 “I was misled”, RD @ 1:40:47 “(neighboring property) photos would have potentially influenced (my decision)” and likely the decision of other board members. The omission of them, a material fact, would have influence on the way anybody would have viewed the matter. CB @ 1:30:26 “We made assumptions”, CB @ 1:30”44 “(without neighboring photos) we can’t see the impact”. TE @ 1:31:08 “(in response to CB) You are not wrong”. You can not have an opinion on something you don’t know exists. The reality is (as was confirmed by NYS Supreme Court Judge Walsh) the DRB should never have even seen the original application. It should never have made it across the counter of the City’s Building Department as “only complete applications will be accepted” CITY ATTORNEY: I hope by now that all have read Judge Walsh’s Decision and Order. Mr. Izzo’s interpretation and the advice he is giving the Board does not address the directive of the Decision and Order. 1) Mr. Izzo advises that @ 1:10:32 “no new info” is necessary. And again @ 1:49:28 “this is not an opening for new information” when in fact, the reason that I prevailed in court is because the DRB did not have, for the original review, required photos of neighboring properties, which you now have. 2) Mr. Izzo is asking you to go back in time and answer @ 1:38:56 “why didn’t the board insist on color photographs (of the neighboring properties)” It is unlikely that the board ever discussed the matter of required neighboring property photographs. From conversations I have heard, many members of the Board had no idea that neighboring property photos were a requirement. Do any Board members recall having that conversation? 3) Mr. Izzo is suggesting that the Judge is asking the Board members to go back and justify the decision that was made. Mr. Izzo @ 1:49:25 “the judge is asking (the Board) tell us why you would find this way”. TE @ 1:13:52 questions Izzo on a “duty to rationalize” the past decision and Izzo confirms affirmative. The time to justify any thought process on any decision made was as part of any of the 3 Motions to Dismiss (all denied) that the City filed in the Article 78 court action. At this point, the Judge is not asking you to justify anything and he has vacated the decision the DRB originally reached. 4) That Mr. Izzo thinks that by memorializing the recollections of the board members in a way that justifies the now vacated decision will some how reinstate that decision is preposterous. Is it your opinion that the Saratoga Springs DRB trumps the NY State Supreme Court? This was addressed by GW @1:44:04 and again by TE @ 1:46:38 “is there no approval or is there an approval we need to defend”. 5) The Judge Walsh order does not ask you to answer 2 questions, it tells you to revisit the matter and “follow your own professed requirements”. ADDITIONALLY: 1) Drainage is different from permeability. Mr Trimarchi @ 1:49:38 and again @ 1:51:46 claims he has no drainage problem. That is because he has made his driveway rain water my problem. Look at the recent photos submitted showing both driveways, mine with puddles and his dry. His paving pitches 2 inches toward my property. I am not his storm water basin. 2) KC @ 1:34:10 recognizes the required City review if part of another project requiring permitting. There is no reason any one City Board should approve something that another City Board would deny. I ask the you, as a Board, reach out to others to act in an advisory capacity. 3) Judge Walsh, in his decision, and from his review of exhibits and knowledge of the law concerning right of ways, has characterized the 2 driveways on 2 occasions as “shared”. THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD: 1) The DRB is as much of a victim here as I am. Victim of an intentionally misleading application combined with an oversight by the City staff. The original Trimarchi driveway application should never have made it across the counter of the Building Department. TE @ 1:29:20 “we did our job as it was presented to us”, the problem was in the presentation. 2) TE @ 1:27:50 “(we made a) fair and accurate decision, an unbiased decision” and that is understandable based on what you knew and when you knew it, but you lacked information necessary to see the whole picture. To be clear, a NY State Supreme Court Judge has read my complaint, reviewed all exhibits as evidence, entertained 3 Motions to dismiss by the City, and ultimately ruled that any DRB judgement passed and decision reached on the original Trimarchi driveway application was arbitrary and capricious and that the approval decision is vacated. The black eye here is on the City for putting the board in that spot, 3) TE @ 1:39:25 “we are a good group of people who want to do the right thing, all the time….and I am proud of this board for doing that”. I agree with that 100%. I am asking that you stand by that and push back on the City Attorney as to what course of action you take. Mr. Izzo @ 1:43:45 “Judge Walsh asks the Board To consider those 2 things that he indicated in his decision…once the Board does that your obligation ends. It is up to any party that wants to challenge your eventual findings on this to do so as they see fit”. That is the City’s approach, dig in our heels even when we know we made a mistake. 4) Be certain that Mr. Izzo’s interpretation of the Judges Decision and Order is off the mark. His dig in our heels when we know we made a mistake, when the Judge has ruled you made a mistake stands in stunning misalignment with the values of the Board. If you take the course of his cockamamie scheme that Mr. Izzo thinks trumps the NYS Supreme Court, then we will be back in court again and I will prevail again because you will have done nothing different from what you have done before. This time the black eye will be on the Board. 5) The proper actionable next step is a do-over. Entertain the complete application, which you now have (less any before and after pics) and make the decision you think is right. The Board is being directed by the court to revisit and to “follow your own professional requirements” which includes considering the impact on neighboring properties, which you can now do with the newly submitted (previously omitted) color photos of the neighboring properties.