HomeMy WebLinkAbout20220202 31-33 Marion Area Variance Public Comment (13)Outlook
Online Form Submittal: Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment
From noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>
Date Mon 6/23/2025 10:16 AM
To Mark Graham <Mark.Graham@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 Zoning Board of Appeals
Name John Iacoponi
Email Address Field not completed.
Business Name Field not completed.
Address 4 Ave A
City Saratoga Springs
State NY
Zip Code 12866
Phone Number Field not completed.
Project Name 31-33 Marion - Stewarts - Zoning Interpretations
Project Number 20220202
Project Address 31-33 Marion
Comments 1. Since at least 1970, when the car wash was built, there have
been 3 separate parcels
i. Gas station
ii. Car wash
iii. Residential lot
Since that time the property line associated with the gas station
has been the single small parcel. Fifty five (55) years.
6/23/25, 11:04 AM Mail - Mark Graham - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQAAhMtImv5%2FtFsfceb6tfEs0…1/2
2. When Stewart's bought the property approx early 2010s the
property line associated with the gas station was the same
smaller single parcel.
3. Today, Stewarts is claiming that the language in the Zoning
Ordinance about "property line associated with a gas station"
should not apply in this case, as there was a fueling operation
on the larger parcel dating back many many decades.
4. In the last 1 or 2 years Stewarts combined the 3 separate
parcels into one. Any claim of “grandfather" rights requires
continuous use - NYS case law is clear on that.
Combining parcels into one does not merge any grandfathered
rights into the entire larger parcel - any claim to that effect is
absurd. There is no grandfathered right to a fueling station for
the larger, combined parcel.
5. The ZO is also clear. Any property where existing structures
are demolished must comply with the current zoning
regulations. There is no exception for this clause to be
excluded.
If approved, by the same logic, they could also make the same
argument for the entire original parcel, including the parts
closer to the reservoir. This of course is not what they are
asking.
If approved, this sets a precedent for any other property owner
in the city to stake a similar claim of "grandfathered", or "great-
grandfathered" rights
The claim that the requirements of the ZO should not apply has
no basis, sets a city wide precedent, and should be denied.
d
Attach Photo (optional)Field not completed.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
6/23/25, 11:04 AM Mail - Mark Graham - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQAAhMtImv5%2FtFsfceb6tfEs0…2/2