SARATOGA SPRINGS — Despite a city zoning officer’s determination that Stewart’s Shops cannot build a store that will infringe on a residential neighborhood, the regional convenience store giant said it will appeal the ruling, arguing it can move the zoning boundaries because it owns the properties on both sides of the line.
“Our understanding of the existing ordinance is that anyone owning lands on both sides of a district boundary can move the boundary line without relief or interpretation,” Erica Komoroske, Stewart’s director of public affairs, said in a statement. “The zoning administrator asked Stewart’s to support its position and we are currently looking at previous projects within the city where this was done.”
Stewart’s move worries John Iacoponi who, along with the Marion Avenue and Maple Dell Neighborhood Association, said the company is attempting a “zoning grab.”
“We would welcome redevelopment on Marion Avenue in the existing commercial footprint that is consistent with the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan,” Iacoponi said. “It’s not whatever massive thing they want to put on there. … We have to watch this and will continue our fight against encroachment of commercial uses into our residential neighborhood.”
Iacoponi and the neighbors have been fighting Stewart’s expansion there for more than a year. Initially, neighbors fought a planned unit development that would have included homes along Loughberry Lake, the city’s primary water source.
After that plan was not approved by the City Council, Stewart’s eliminated the homes and the size of its commercial space (from 5,000 square feet to 3,180 square feet) in a modified plan. The store, however, would remain as originally proposed, 3,975 square feet on Route 9 where a Mobil gas station and car wash have been located for decades. While the majority of the new shop will fall into the commercial district, Stewart’s wants to extend the store footprint 100 feet north into the residential neighborhood on a piece of property Stewart’s owns.
On May 16, Patrick Cogan, the city’s zoning and building inspector, determined that wasn’t possible. In a letter, he wrote “property to the north is considered to be residential in character and the (Zoning) Board (of Appeals) at this time disapproves further business expansion north of the subject property.”
While Iacoponi is not surprised by Stewart’s appeal, he said that notes from Cogan’s determination include one on “split zoned lots.”
“What this clause was never meant to include was the scenario where an owner can acquire an adjacent lot that is knowingly in a different zoning district, then choose to expand the zoning district requirements from one lot to the other. This would effectively subvert the requirements for use variances,” Cogan’s notes read. “If the authors had anticipated this clause being used to attempt to evade future variances through strategic acquisition, more detailed and limiting conditions would certainly have been incorporated.”
Iacoponi said he wishes Stewart’s would respect the city inspector’s statements. However, he noted that the fight against Stewart’s infringement into the residential neighborhood has “been a chess match” and the neighbors are prepared.
“It is our expectation that the city will not be intimidated by Stewart’s attempt to evade the variance process, will vigorously defend the ruling of the zoning officer, and will uphold one of the fundamental tenets of the zoning ordinance, which is to provide maximum protection of residential areas,” Iacoponi said.
Stewart’s, however, reasoned that redeveloping the Marion Avenue property would “revitalize this legacy location.”
“We understand this is a step in the process and we are optimistic to work through it and develop a win/win scenario,” Komoroske said in a statement.
