Planning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COHOES PLANNING BOARD HELD AT 97 MOHAWK STREET 2ND FLOOR COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS JULY 12, 2021 at 6:30PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Mark DeFruscio, Chairperson Mr. Jack Carroll, Vice Chairperson Mr. Joseph Nadeau Ms. Stephanie Couture Mr. Bob Bucher ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Seman-Graves, City Planner Sharon Butler, Administrative Assistant Chairperson DeFruscio called the meeting to order at 6:31 pm. I’d like to welcome everybody to the first live meeting we’ve had in quite some time. Roll call please Roll Call; No members absent CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 14, 2021 MEETING Chairperson DeFruscio; 1st item on agenda is the meeting minutes from June 14, 2021, do any members have questions, comments or changes to the minutes? With no questions, Vice Chair Carroll made a motion to approve the minutes which Member Nadeau seconded and the motion carried unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X Kizzy Williams Non-Voting CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR 178-182 ONTARIO STREET Chairperson DeFruscio; Ok, next on the agenda is 178-182 Ontario Street. The applicant submitted the Final Environmental Impact Statement. They’ve had, we’ve had the appropriate time for citizens to reply. The reply period closed last meeting and this meeting there was one change made. Chairperson DeFruscio asked the applicant if they would like to say anything. John Montayne explained where they are now in the process of the FEIS, stating that there were 10 comments that came in on the Draft EIS. Six comments were in favor of the project, and 4 other comments that had concerns with various items regarding retail space, user amenities, blasting on site, traffic impact and the impact on schools. Mr. Montayne stated there would be no blasting on site, traffic study was completed by Creighton Manning and because the units are one and two bedroom the impact on schools would be minimal. Chairperson DeFruscio explained that the board was just voting on accepting the document as revised with the comments and they are not voting on the project itself. He then opened it up for public comments, which there were none and no other questions or comments from board members. Chairperson DeFruscio asked for a motion to accept or deny the Final Environmental Impact Statement as modified and with the statements and all other pertinent information Vice Chair Carroll made a motion to approve which was seconded by Member Bucher Motion carried unanimously  YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X Kizzy Williams Non-Voting Chairperson DeFruscio; stated that at the next meeting the board will be addressing voting on the project per say and talking about that a little bit more CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 110 HEARTT AVENUE Chairperson DeFruscio; explained to the people in the audience that the applicant wants to install a private writer studio in the form of a tiny house on a concrete pad which will be on wheels should the applicant need to move it. He explained that it is a good use of a nice small piece of property in a residential neighborhood and the project is different in nature but an interesting approach. He then asked the applicant if she would like to add anything. Ms. Rhonda Rosenheck approached and stated that this is going to be a writing studio, free library and a reading garden out front. They are a little behind schedule as she just closed on the property from the Land Bank and the tiny house won’t be completed until probably winter, with landscaping and gardening not done until next spring. Chairperson DeFruscio asked if any board members had any other questions. Member Nadeau reminded the applicant that this was not going to be a residence for anyone of which Ms. Rosenheck confirmed it would not be anyone’s residence. Joe Seman-Graves gave an update on the water and sewer hookups that need to take place, stating that the road was just paved and they are working on exactly where the hookups will be for the property. Chairperson DeFruscio opened it up to public comments which there were none and no other questions from board members Member Couture made a motion to approve the project which was seconded by Member Nadeau and the motion carried unanimously YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X Kizzy Williams Non-Voting Joe Seman-Graves; then asked the board if they wanted to do a separate vote for the record for the Special Use Permit: Chairperson DeFruscio; agreed and stated that he was now looking for a motion for a Special Use Permit for this piece of property for the tiny house and the library which Member Nadeau made the motion and was seconded by Member Couture and the motion carried unanimously YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X Kizzy Williams Non-Voting CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR 169 ONTARIO STREET Chairperson DeFruscio; next item is 169 Ontario Street U-Haul for a Preliminary Site Plan application for the applicant to use U-Haul van bodies as self-storage units. Chairperson DeFruscio asked the applicant to approach and give an overview of what he was looking to do. Joe Seman-Graves stated that the board needs to be aware that this is just preliminary and the applicant has to go to Zoning also for approvals. Mr. Russell Dumas explained that they came up with the concept of reusing old boxes off the U-Haul trucks and using them as storage units. He explained that they would line them up put metal sides and metal roofs on them so they look like buildings so they would have minimal impact on the environment as they would be placed on the existing blacktop. Chairperson DeFruscio confirmed with the applicant that he was going to enclose the bodies themselves and use the doors on them as entrance to the units Mr. Dumas stated that is correct. Mr. Dumas explained that there would be additional spot lighting with wall pecs along the sides and the lighting would be facing down so as not to disturb neighbors and stated that they would do landscaping if wanted. Mr. Dumas stated that it would be 3 rows 2 of which are actual box containers from trailers and the 2 smaller ones which would be furthest west, then we have the 2 rows of van bodies at the 30 foot 6 x 72 Chairperson DeFruscio asked the applicant to point out the lighting on the drawing which Mr. Dumas approached and pointed it out on the drawing that the WP’s are the wall pecs. Chairperson DeFruscio asked there was any other lighting that the applicant was looking to install in that area. Mr. Dumas stated it was not intended. Chairperson DeFruscio asked if any other board members had questions. Member Nadeau asked about the rubber roofing that appeared to be on them and that the drawing is not to scale. Mr. Dumas explained that they started to water proof and they are looking to do rubber roofing and that the drawing was close but not to scale. Chairperson DeFruscio asked if he was intending to put fencing or an enclosure around the area. Mr. Dumas stated that they did not intend to but if it was a requirement they would. Member Nadeau stated he had safety concerns with no fencing as some of the containers have doors on them and with kids and no fencing around the area the security of each of these boxes is crucial. Mr. Dumas explained that a non-rented room would have locks and an alarm system on it as well as a customer rented room would have locks. Member Couture asked the applicant if there is general surveillance. Mr. Dumas stated that there are 2 cameras and they were going to add 2 more. Member Couture then asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Dumas stated move-in hours are 7AM – 7PM but there is 24 hour access to the units. Chairperson DeFruscio asked about inside storage access if it’s secured access and one would need door code Mr. Dumas stated that renters would have card access and there is an alarm system, when the card is swiped it would turn off the alarm. Mr. Dumas stated that each one of the doors would have a one or 2 card access, they will probably have 2 one on each row. Member Couture asked if there were any other locations like this. Mr. Dumas stated closet is in Poughkeepsie. Member Couture asked if the one in Poughkeepsie is reusing van bodies Mr. Dumas stated yes it was Chairperson DeFruscio stated that he is concerned about view from the street on Clark and the impact of late night visitors to the area and how headlights and activity impact the neighbors. Mr. Dumas stated that the typical storage renter rents for 16 months, they do not frequent, come and go the vast majority are customers that come between 5 and 7 PM and they are looking at about 30 to 35 total customers. Member Couture asked when a customer comes to rent a storage unit what is the process to know what is going to be stored in the unit so there isn’t hazardous materials and things of that nature. Mr. Dumas explained that they have terms and conditions that states no explosives no hazardous materials things like that. Ms. Kizzy Williams asked if they check the storage unit’s monthly even if someone is renting one. Mr. Dumas stated that they do and they color code the locks, if they are a U-Haul lock then nobody’s renting it, we color code the locks and periodically open them up to check them and we do a walk through daily of all of our storage units, make sure if anybody moved out we know they moved out and make sure nothing is broken. Ms. Williams; asked if they you go inside the units to check them. Mr. Dumas stated that they do not once they are rented. Ms. William’s; again questioned the security of the units and knowing if people move into them. Ms. Williams then stated she would like to see a fence around the units, for safety and stated that the units should be checked just to make sure people aren’t moving in. Mr. Dumas again stated that they walk through every storage unit every day to check if there’s a lock on it, if it’s their lock on it we know nobody moved in because they can’t unlock our locks and put their lock on without us knowing it. Vice Chair Carroll clarified what Ms. Williams was actually asking; how do they know if a person moved into the unit and is living in it. Chairperson DeFruscio stated they have cameras that watch people coming and going in and out of the units so if somebody was living there they would see that. Mr. Dumas stated that they do not allow people to live in the units as it would be very unsafe. There would be no way for them to lock the door from the inside. Chairperson DeFruscio state that there’s not power or lighting inside the rooms themselves either. Chairperson DeFruscio then state that he’d like to talk about the fence a little bit, agreeing that a fence should be around the units but that there’s some issues with that from the business perspective, asking the board members if we would want them to enclose just this area where the rental buildings are because if we had them do that then they’re going to have to use a certain amount of space so that people can get in there with trucks and things and I know that this roadway between the building and where they’re planning to put these storage units is a well-traveled area with the trucks that they rent all the time. Technically they come in here and sometimes they come in, check them in here and sometimes they go out Clark Avenue (shown on screen) to get off of the lot. So if we required them to enclose this entirely with a fence there would be some issues with that. Vice Chair Carroll asked about a gate at the rows, the 3 rows here. Ms. Williams expressed concern on people coming 1, 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning. Chairperson DeFruscio then stated with that concern I’m thinking we should consider a solid fence across the Clark Avenue side, so it protects them from any light or anything from the unit and people getting in there. The back faces the empty lot that is behind you, and then the side is your property and the river. Ms. Williams asked what the security is, is it just cameras or is there going to be a person Mr. Dumas; stated just cameras. Chairperson DeFruscio asked if the cameras monitored 7 by 24 or are the cameras just monitored when the storage is open. Mr. Dumas; they’re on 24 hours with a 3 month overlap, so they retain digital files for at least 3months of all activity. Chairperson DeFruscio stated that is good but that just means if somebody is there in the middle of the night, fooling around or trying to break in, nobody knows about it until the next morning. Mr. Dumas responded not necessarily, because everything is alarmed too, so the alarm would go off and the alarm company would call the police I think if we have one gate built in between the 2 and leave the driveway around the back and fence off around that section that should accomplish everything (shown on screen). Chairperson DeFruscio asked if there were any other comments or questions. Right now what everybody is saying is along Clark Avenue we’d like to see a solid fence with some good visual greenery things of that nature, and then continue that fence around the units to give you space to turn around and then if you put gates on front that should suffice. Mr. Dumas asked what types of solid fencing are you talking about because we have stockade fencing at 2 locations and we’re replacing it every spring. Chairperson DeFruscio responded we would always say to use a 6’ vinyl fence, something of that nature to have less maintenance. I don’t know that we would make that a requirement; we can if it makes it easier for you, and we don’t want you to put something there that’s a maintenance inconvenience. So we wouldn’t tell you it has to be a wooden stockade fence. Mr. Dumas responded that was ok he just didn’t know if there was specific regulations. Chairperson DeFruscio then asked Joe Seman-Graves if there were any code requirements. Joe Seman-Graves stated there is not but he would encourage the board to get a to scale site plan because of concerns with the 38’ area and other things, so a drawing to scale site plan will address all the concerns and issues. Chairperson DeFruscio stated what I would do is proposed if we approve it to add the requirement for them to provide us with a revised scaled site plan indicating where the fence is, where the gate is, the plantings and materials. Member Nadeau stated the board should table it until the revised site plan is submitted and the board has all the additional information. Chairperson DeFruscio then stated that the board was looking for a revised site plan from the applicant with the fencing, planting materials and everything on it to scale. Member Nadeau made the motion to TABLE the item which was 2nd by Member Bucher motion carried unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X Kizzy Williams Non-Voting CONSIDERATION OF A CHANGE OF USE AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR 169 REMSEN STREET Chairperson DeFruscio asked the applicant to approach to explain what he was looking to do. Mr. Jason Wellington told the board he opened a tobacco store on Remsen Street and now would like to serve alcohol in a little lounge in his establishment. He stated that the SLA had to see his property pretty much complete with construction and he has a temporary license from the SLA. He is also looking to have 2 easy bet machines for OTB because they are closing. Chairperson DeFruscio asked is there any special permit you need to have those betting machines. Mr. Wellington stated no I’ve already been fingerprinted with the Gaming Commission and with the SLA. Chairperson DeFruscio asked the applicant so you want to add alcohol and gambling to your establishment. Mr. Wellington stated it’s not really gambling is gaming, that he was approached about having the machines because OTB is closing. He also stated that what hurts his business is the foot traffic is tough on Remsen Street and that is where he came up with the ideas to generate new foot traffic. Chairperson DeFruscio asked the applicant how that changed the internal seating of his establishment. Mr. Wellington stated that it doesn’t Member Nadeau asked what he would do in the line of food service. Mr. Wellington stated he has to have small food like hot pockets or pizza but he wants to partner with other restaurants on Remsen Street. He would work with the restaurants have them bring the food in to be served. Member Bucher asked if it is a requirement to have food when serving alcohol. Mr. Wellington stated yes and that he did have to show the SLA his microwave and refrigerator and what he was going to serve, but he is taking it a step further to work with the restaurants not only on Remsen but others not on Remsen Street. Member Couture asked if in addition to his liquor license would he need to have more staff. Mr. Wellington stated that more than likely yes depending on what happens. Ms. Williams stated she loves the idea and that this concept does work well in other places. She also asked if he would be making drinks. Mr. Wellington responded no he would not; he doesn’t know anything about making drinks. Ms. Williams then asked who would be managing the smoke shop. Mr. Wellington responded that he would, he explained to the board that it is a 3 part establishment, sectioned off in 3 different ways. Member Bucher asked about what the hours would be. Mr. Wellington stated he would like to be in line with the other bars, and he looking at 9AM to 3AM, stating that he was just doing a perimeter not knowing what would actually work. Member Couture asked what the applicant would like his proposed days and hours to be Mr. Wellington responded that 1 or 2 in the morning would be fair. Chairperson DeFruscio stated that what is on the application was 7 days a week 9AM to 3AM asking if he was going to be open 7 days a week. Mr. Wellington stated that currently no he would not explaining that Saturdays and Mondays are slow on Remsen Street and he was looking to reserve Monday on his website as a day for special events. Stating that he wants to bring new people to Remsen Street, explaining that this is not a club or club environment, he wants to keep it just a place for people to enjoy vaping, or the Hookah Bar, some food and a drink. Chairperson DeFruscio explained to the applicant that the board needed to define some structure to agree and vote on, stating that the board can always approve him being open 7 days a week 9AM to 1AM but if it didn’t work out for him he could always come back to the board. Chairperson DeFruscio stated that the board was just trying to come up with perimeters to be voted on, explaining that he personally did not have a problem with selling liquor or having the gaming machine or even the Hookah Bar, but wanted the applicant to be aware that purchasing food from another restaurant and if that would limit his hours based on when he can get food. Mr. Wellington stated that was why he wants to work with multiple restaurants so there could be more flexibility. Chairperson DeFruscio then opened it up to public comments, being none public comment period closed. Chairperson DeFruscio stated he would like to scale the hours back to 9AM to 1AM. A motion was made by Member Bucher to approve the Special Use Permit adding the sale of alcohol, gaming machines and the Hookah Bar with the hours of 9AM to 1AM 2nd by Member Couture motion carried unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X Kizzy Williams Non-Voting CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 33 HART STREET Chairperson DeFruscio explained that the applicant is looking at site plan approval to construct an 8’ aluminum fence with a personal and vehicular gate, asking if that would be in the front or back. Chairperson DeFruscio then asked the applicant to explain what they are looking to do. Mr. David Cox approached and explained that it would be both, stating that they did get a variance 2 years ago but since decided to change it a little bit. He stated that they still wanted to do the 8’ fence but also a retaining wall to level the parking lot, stating that the highest point would be 2’ or 22” which would be on the Main Street side and then they wanted to have the retaining wall go down to where the sign is on Columbia Street and turn it and that is where the vehicle gate would be. Mr. Cox stated that the fence would go on top of the retaining wall. Member Nadeau asked the applicant if it would go from 8’ to nothing Mr. Cox explained he wanted to do it like that so the parking lot wouldn’t drop off where the sign is, he explained that they are still working on the design. Chairperson DeFruscio asked Mr. Cox what he planned on for the Hart Street side. Mr. Cox explained that he wanted to do a fence around their garbage cans. After discussion about type of fencing and where it was going and planting of some trees the members of the board stated that they did not see anything negative with what the applicant is proposing as it would provide privacy and clean up the area. Joe Seman-Graves explained that the applicant did go to zoning previously and technically should have zoning and planning approvals. Member Nadeau questioned the grading of the parking lot coming around the corner from Main Street to Columbia Street. Mr. Cox responded that he would make sure the grading was done correctly to avoid any issues. Chairperson DeFruscio asked if board members had any other questions, with none he opened it up to public comments. With no public comments Member Nadeau made a motion to approve the site plan application 2nd by Vice Chair Carroll motion carried unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X Kizzy Williams Non-Voting CONSIDERATION OF DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED SITE PLAN UPDATES AND ADMENDMENTS Chairperson DeFruscio stated next agenda item was for 77 Ontario Street which is Island Spirits. Mr. Tim Fredette approached and explained the different plans he has with redoing the parking lot, fencing, plantings and shrubbery. Joe Seman-Graves explained to the board that the site plan they were looking at was from 2016, and Mr. Fredette was updating the board on what new ideas he wants to incorporate. He also explained to the board that the site plan is not to scale, and if the applicant does what he wants to put here it will create other consequences to happen. Chairperson DeFruscio asked if the parking was going to change along Ontario Street from parallel to perpendicular. Mr. Fredette stated no he was leaving it the same way but wanted to put the black fence up and put shrubs there (he showed them on the screen) Vice Chair Carroll stated that he was looking to put the greenery on the street instead of the parking lot. Mr. Fredette responded again explaining the justification for the change. Chairperson DeFruscio stated that one thing missing is the new bus stop which is substantial and when he puts the fence up there it will limit the space between the fence and the bus stop limiting the space for people to use the sidewalk and they would have to use the space in front of the bus stop. Member Couture stated she likes the black fence idea and asked about putting flower boxes attached to the fence. Mr. Fredette stated that they did think about that stating they could do flower boxes down the fence. Member Couture stated maybe do every other panel so it wasn’t too much. Mr. Fredette said he would be agreeable to that. Member Couture asked the applicant to explain the block wall, where it was going to be and that it wasn’t going to obstruct traffic. Mr. Fredette showed where it would be that it would be 3’ high and that it would not obstruct traffic. Member Bucher stated that his concern is that the plan was not to scale asking the applicant to submit a plan to scale showing the parking lot, bus stop and all his ideas so they have a better idea on what the applicant is proposing. Joe Seman-Graves clarified with the board that they were looking for black aluminum fencing around rest of the perimeter, flower boxes, fence on Ontario Street side, landscaping on existing white vinyl fence, current sign, moving the dumpster, snow removal/storage and scaled drawing to be submitted for review and approval. There was no vote on this item as this was discussion only. CONSIDERATION OF A CHANGE OF USE/NEW TENANT APPLICATION FOR 120 MOHAWK STREET Chairperson DeFruscio asked the applicant to approach to explain what they are looking to do. Mr. Vitaliy Volpov approached and explained that the LLC purchased the property last spring as a 7 unit apartment building, but after speaking with Joe Seman-Graves he found out that only 6 units were approved and it was never changed. He stated that the previous owner did renovations in 2018 and that there are 3 1 bedroom, 2 studio and 2 2 bedrooms units. The applicant stated he is seeking to have the correction made for the use of the building. Mr. Volpov stated there is no off street parking with the building, but they never had any complaints from tenants. Member Couture asked if there were garages associated with the building. Mr. Volpov responded no. Vice Chair Carroll asked if this is an administrative issue. Joe Seman-Graves responded that the units have already been actively rented out. Member Couture asked if the tenants were existing prior to their purchase. Mr. Volpov responded that they were. Joe Seman-Graves stated to the board that there is one apartment not currently up to code and the applicant stated that it will be fixed. Mr. Volpov stated to the board that there is a window that needs to be replaced and they are in the process of doing that. Vice Chair Carroll asked the applicant if once that is done then would everything be up to code. Joe Seman-Graves responded that 6 of the units have already been issued C/O’s. Member Bucher asked if the unit not approved is the one with the code issues and asked what the code issue was with the unit. Mr. Volpov responded that it’s an egress window issue and gas wall heaters. Member Bucher stated if the apartment is brought up to code he didn’t have any issues with the application. Ms. Williams asked the applicant when he found out about this issue. Mr. Volpov stated it was about a month ago when a tenant moved out. Chairperson DeFruscio stated to the applicant that he appreciates his due diligence in correcting this issue. Chairperson DeFruscio asked if there were any other questions or comments with none he opened it up to public comment. With no public comments a motion was made by Member Couture to change the use at 120 Mohawk Street from a three to seven unit apartment 2nd by Member Bucher with the stipulation that the one apartment was brought up to building code. Motion carried unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X Kizzy Williams Non-Voting With no other business to discuss motion was made by Member Couture to adjourn the meeting 2nd by Member Bucher meeting adjourned at 8:08PM