HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190880 SJK Properties Residence Correspondance (5) Zi m bra amanda.tucker@saratoga-springs.org
October 28, 2019 Zoning Board of Appeals Mtg
From :Jenni <jenni7y@yahoo.com> Fri, Nov 01, 2019 12:08 PM
Subject : October 28, 2019 Zoning Board of Appeals Mtg
To : amanda tucker <amanda.tucker@saratoga-springs.org>
Dear Ms. Tucker and Board,
This letter is in response to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on Monday,
October 28, 2019.
I attended this meeting with some concerns for the 78 Mitchell Street
construction. I had previously sent on October 8th, a letter sharing some
these concerns and also requested that my letter be shared with anyone else
relevant, meaning the Building Department.
On October 28th, I attempted to share some of my concerns that were
relevant. I was looked at by one male member with absolute disrespect and
simultaneously, cut off from any further attempts at sharing some relevant
concerns. I was shocked by the abrupt dismissal.
Bullet number 5 under your zoning board form states, "Please be respectful to
the speakers while they are addressing the Board. " Though I was hoping to
address relevant concerns that were under consideration and review, I was
unable to.
I will list those concerns here:
1) Though it is too late to do anything about this concern, I still do not
know how the Building Department or the Zoning Board permitted 78 Mitchell
Street to be elevated to such a degree that the surrounding neighbors are
potentially at risk of major water run off and flooding.
2) It appears most are finally aware that this is a business, owner, SCK
Properties, and not a private residence, yet still not zoned as such, and
several of us that own land adjacent to 78 Mitchell, are all concerned about
the parking situation since this small piece of property housing this massive
entertainment facility, is only required to have a small, two car driveway.
During the construction, we have already encountered several situations of
unauthorized use and parking.
I do not blame the Zoning Board initially for the zoning confusion, as the
application for this project originally had the architect listed as the
owner. Then it listed SDK' s interior decorator as owner. That' s a concern.
Several of us however, are still concerned over the zoning, potential water
run off, and parking.
How is it that there are "2" 20' x 24' patios and a 24' x 42' pavilion
housing a "second" large kitchen and bath, obviously intended for large
crowds, permitted to have only a small 2 car driveway? Is it too late to be
addressed?
Someone mentioned that the recorded 10/28 session has communications of 2
members mentioning not bringing up "parking" . . . referred to parking situation
as, not wanting to go down that "rabbit hole"? I believe this does need to
be addressed, immediately.
This project is near its final stage, and not sure what more can be done to
make these potentially wrong situations right, but as I said before, I would
have appreciated an opportunity to finish speaking, without being humiliated
and cut off. I hope that there will not be a problem like this in the
future.
When I ended my first letter to this Board by saying that I hope everything
works out positively for everyone, I meant it.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Chew