The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20190604 Cluett House B&B Correspondance To: Saratoga Springs Planning Board Re: October 17, 2019 Meeting 20190604 THE CLUE I I HOUSE BED AND BREAKFAST, 2 Clement Avenue, From: Rob Coughlin As a result of the direction of the planning board the two members of the LLC applicant, Jennifer Schannault, a former GE employee and current owner of a Broadway retail home goods store and her husband, Scott Strazik, CEO of GE Power Services, hosted a Sunday afternoon open house at Two Clement. Most neighbors arrived at 2:00 but I arrived some time thereafter, not knowing there was an agenda in place even though I had spoken directly with Ms. Schannault when I RSVP'd. When I arrived people were gathered around in one of the lovely front rooms and Mr. Strazik offered me something to drink, water, wine. Some neighbors were seated and some stood as the seats in this room were taken. I am not sure of all who were present but I can say that Mr. Strazik was there initially and Ms. Schannault arrived after me; Peter Belmonte, Sharon Byrne and later her husband, Rosemary Ratcliffe and her two of her teenage children, and Gary and Beth Harker. I was not present for the entire conversation and of course no one was taking notes or making a transcript so I apologize in advance if any of my comments are inaccurate or my recollection differs from others. My intent is to relate what transpired at the meeting in an accurate fashion and to assist the Planning Board in having a clear picture. I do ultimately intend to comment and advocate for my position after hearing from the members of the applicant at this gathering. I stood next to Gary Harker and he leaned over to me to tell me that he and his wife had offered to buy the house from the LLC for the amount the LLC paid. Mr. Strazik needed no time to reflect on the offer. The rejection was immediate. During the course of the meeting the neighbors made clear that we would welcome Scott, Jennifer and their children as neighbors as another way of bringing our quandary to a resolution. Mr. Strazik rejected this proposal as well. He noted that he understood that the neighbors, the people at the meeting, thought this was a quiet neighborhood but this was not a quiet neighborhood to him. They live at 11 Beacon Hill Drive. https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/11-Beacon-Hill-Dr Saratoga- Ssrin.s NY 12866 M38301-25594 See attached. He continued to say that there was too much traffic in the Clement Avenue vicinity and he would not subject his children to this danger. Notably, few if any, of criteria to be addressed for the issuance of a Special Use Permit were addressed by the applicant at this meeting, except perhaps Scott's remark that the neighborhood, (even without the addition of a B&B across the street from a playground) was too dangerous for his children. He did not suggest that the applicant would be willing to add sidewalks, preclude the use of the curb cut directly opposite the playground or that the applicant would be willing to implement any other alterations to their plan to protect the safety of the children enjoying the playground. According to Mr. Strazik the neighborhood even without the B and B does not have safe and efficient pedestrian, vehicular access, yet this commercial undertaking will only negatively impact on these conditions. While I was at the meeting I did not hear any comment about how the applicant would be willing to ameliorate these conditions. While I was present the members of the applicant also failed to address any other relevant issue, such as the mysterious bubbling of red water at the end of the driveway that bleeds across State Street, the impact of five separate units of transient vacationers, six units if we include, as we should, the resident manager, on the city infrastructure, the neighborhood density , intensity or compatibility with the neighborhood, commercial deliveries of food and other necessities for running this enterprise. They states that they had regulations for the use of the premises that would be well-publicized to the vacationers and the Resident Manager would be resOonsible or enforcing those regulations. I do not have a copy of those regulations. The Harkers, in my presence, reiterated the offer to buy back the house at the price the applicant paid or to welcome the members to move into the neighborhood. Mr. Strazik rejected these alternatives out of hand. I specifically inquired as to why they would turn down the offer that fundamentally made them whole and he stated, "We looked at many places and we loved this one. We are motivated to turn this into house into a Bed and Breakfast." He also advised that the interior construction work would take one year and they intended to use Airbnb until such time as the B&B was approved. I had gone into this meeting with an open mind. I had spoken to the neighbors and had noted that we could be jumping from the frying pan into the fire; that we could have a Pyrrhic victory should the Planning Board deny the Special Use Permit, opening the door to a resident-managerless Airbnb. After attending this meeting however, I was very troubled by the thoughtless rejection of the proposals presented to them and specifically the unwillingness even to consider being made whole. This rejection demonstrates that this may be more than a business decision. Rather, this wholesale and immediate rejection come off to me more a personal desire to "win." Indeed, the rejection followed by the statement that they are "motivated" to have this house converted into a B&B and they will continue to use Airbnb until that happens was a not-so-subtle threat or ultimatum to the neighbors. I took it that way and having spoken to some of the other neighbors I was not alone in that conclusion. I have previously addressed in writing the legal criteria that are imposed on the applicant to justify the issuance of a SUP and the failure of the applicant to meet those criteria. Very little at the meeting addressed these issues in a way that reflected positively for the applicant. In addition, I have demonstrated that the applicant simply does not consider the objectively legitimate concerns of the neighbors to have any weight. For example, the applicant only met with the neighbors because it was directed to by the Planning Board. It is obvious why they did not meet with us their own. They simply did not care what we had to say. The applicant is not entitled to the relief it seeks. Additionally, the City must act on the issue of the impact of the digital economy in general and the anarchic atmosphere created by the wholly unregulated rental of non-owner occupied single-family homes. The neighbors in this neighborhood and throughout the City deserve to have its government address the Airbnb issue. Respectfully, Robert H. Coughlin II v v "' v , y .r RIG z '�a )�p @'x/X ��tl 'Y°gy.,;yG�, 1 o.J 4� . 1 'p ,, C' m , t rh, Cal . . . ``ww, ``,t€3h lyt. dig c I Q) C M Ql AIII -AS 3 •. y Its '''''''5';''...I.'" 4 _ fJ. xr ... ''''''''''''''''''A Yw f.✓ r,..... 1, 's I,,.4 : c .b } MA ..,-*" -e- k i. .,7' k .,5,. 751 a L� ni' '"�rrlt¢a�="a+�' a '�n ""2'`� x .E A. - 1{ �, ��r � � ` �, Y4x Ii ,74'x.. qt 't la.> &&ti0OA N A �1 a-- k \Mt� >,+ M .", ;k "' w v+J".0‘ { 4 A.P , ',tl Y+', U(� ' u»aNVF ..r.YYY"41m`m4�a �( Sy �fV� ,.FaVxr�o rfn '� � � . O i • s-✓.,..s^`.1'J-�Y'd` ..f t ,-. ,r.F ,�r Fl^�. ..7�. ��'Y': a '',�'- } s.'" +t. +4" .',"t�.r f ., Ci) 0.) a. i_� m : tlJ ,.. c. E r.ro 19 r---] -' C:J 2. ('� U . } , 1 LU C5 p i 4 ro 25 G� V L� y J. ur • n 4 7 4 -e+ ", -,ijd,kf . k..'' iC _ r r , -' 01 .J r ' i F3 I 74 ' 1 k € ' •.. .,,S,_,..1'... i Prr�jifU oi .a agd",t. , ,,...;:lp •,', TP a r ' Y' :,.y ); ^ ' ° «.",a'. 1, ti 1 Ja