Zoning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD IN THE COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF COHOES CITY HALL ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 2015 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Hughes, Chairman Mr. Mark Cotch Mrs. Joyce Baranski ABSENT: Mr. Francis Houle, Vice-Chairman ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Melissa Cherubino, Director of Building and Planning CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 25, 2015. Chairman Hughes called the meeting to order at 6:40 pm. The Chairman asked the recording secretary to take attendance. Member Cotch moved to approve the minutes of February 25, 2015. Member Baranski seconded the motion, roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN John Hughes X Joyce Baranski X Frank Houle ABSENT Mark Cotch X CONSIDERATION OF A USE VARIANCE AND AN AREA VARIANCE FOR A MULTI-FAMILY AT 24 AMITY STREET Thomas Keaney proposes converting the vacant warehouse at 24 Amity Street to a multi-family containing 14 apartments. He finds that the proposal fits the character of the neighborhood. Although pre-existing traffic issues impact the residents, the proposal includes the required two parking spaces per unit for a total of 28. Furthermore, given that 10 of the units contain only one bedroom, the developer finds that the typical 14 unit multi-family does not need two parking spaces per residential unit. Finally, given the size of the building at just under 14,000 sq ft the space cannot be used for fewer residential units without increasing the number of bedrooms in each unit. Yet, the three bedroom units are the least marketable, while one bedroom units are the most marketable. Moreover, if ten units are created with three bedrooms each the apartments could meet requirements for a maximum occupancy of 6 people per unit in accordance with NYS Property Maintenance Code. However, the rental price per unit would also increase to pay for the $1.5 million renovations, building sale price/mortgage, and annual property/ school taxes. Compared to the $150,000 average home price, the likely market for a three bedroom would be multiple adults to share the rental costs instead of a single family with children. Therefore, the potential number of vehicles would increase while the required number of off-street parking spaces would decrease to 20. Alderwoman Diane Nolin represents the fourth ward. She supports the application as she prefers apartments to vacancy of the building. She also appreciates that the applicant has addressed the privacy concerns of adjacent neighbors. However, she requests conditioned approvals to address \\cohoes.local\CoC-Data\Users\mashline-heil\Boards, Commissions, & Agencies\ZBA\ZBA\minutes\ZBA minutes 2015\ZBA Minutes 5.27.2015.doc the traffic concerns. For example, the Board could condition approvals on the applicant discouraging tenants from parking on-street in order to preserve the ROW along the narrow street. Michael Mero of 22 Amity Street claims that the street cannot support 28 additional vehicles. He also avers that the indoor garbage facility will attract vermin. He opposes the multi-family as he would rather see the building remain commercial. Mark Kennedy of 71 Amity Street would rather see 10 units than 14 in the space. He believes that the current road conditions, sight distance at the outlet onto Columbia Street and the number of vehicles parked on-street all constitute a danger and that the current proposal will exacerbate the conditions. He also suggests that winter snow removal is a problem for the site. Karen Mero of 22 Amity Street echoes the traffic concerns. She is also worried that the proposal will impair quality of life. She commented that the proposed A/C units will cause excess noise and the additional traffic will be dangerous to children on the street. She and her husband recently moved into the home. Mr, Keaney responded that neighbors requested interior garbage facilities which he agreed to provide. Staff would remove garbage weekly. Deodorizers and containment would be used to reduce odors and attraction of pests. Mr. Keaney also pointed out that the application was originally for 16 units with 24 parking spaces. The developers reduced the number of units and increased the parking in response to neighbors’ concerns. First, regarding the use variance application Chairman Hughes reminded the neighbors that the first and second applicants withdrew the requests for approval because the proposals could not be constructed within the demanded constraints. Furthermore, the economic argument of a reasonable return is predicated on the costs of rehab, mortgage costs and taxes combined with the marketability of the proposed use given its location. In this case, the 13,900+ sq ft building costs $200,000 but is valued at $455,000. The rehab costs $1.5 million. Yet, the taxes and utilities on a building that size could not be sustained by a single family. Typical FMV of houses in that area run about $150,000. Therefore, the applicant has met his burden in proving the building cannot be used for one of the permitted uses, namely single family, two-family or row-housing. Second, the applicant argued that the hardship is unique to the property. Formerly used as a warehouse, the 13,900+ sq ft building is an outlier in the zoning district which is comprised mostly of single, two- and three-family homes averaging 1-2,000 sq ft. As a result, the applicant has proven that the hardship is unique to this property and will not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood. Third, the applicant is converting legal nonconforming or grandfathered commercial space to residential. Since the property is in the R-2 residential zoning district, Board members found that a residential use would fit in with the essential character of the neighborhood better than \\cohoes.local\CoC-Data\Users\mashline-heil\Boards, Commissions, & Agencies\ZBA\ZBA\minutes\ZBA minutes 2015\ZBA Minutes 5.27.2015.doc industry, warehousing or offices. Consequently the applicant has met the third leg of the state standard for a use variance. Finally, the applicant did not create the hardship. Chairman Hughes pointed out that the 14,000 sq ft brick building was constructed before the surrounding houses. Since the building exists, the applicant is making suitable use of an existing property, not creating a hardship. Accordingly, the applicant met all four standards for a use variance. As a result, Member Cotch moved to approve the use variance. Member Baranski seconded the motion which passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN John Hughes X Joyce Baranski X Frank Houle ABSENT Mark Cotch X First, with regard to the area variance Chairman Hughes explained that the neighbors asserted detriments to the “health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood” due to traffic concerns. However, Member Baranski stated that she lived on the east side of Amity Street when Service Master was in business. At that time and now traffic was always an issue on Amity Street and throughout the City of Cohoes. She does not think even 28 additional vehicles will impact the existing conditions when 1) the applicant is providing off-street parking and 2) the former commercial use, Service Master, parked employees’ personal vehicles and large diesel trucks that emitted exhaust which were used for handling noxious materials such as chemicals, waste products, etc. in the regular janitorial services and disaster recovery services. As a result, she does not find that the proposed use will constitute anymore detriment to the neighborhood than the grandfathered use. Indeed, Member Baranski believes tenants will fit in better with the character of the neighborhood. That assertion touches on the second standard: the creation of residential housing units will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The second clause of this standard questions whether the proposed area variance will create a detriment to nearby properties. Neighbors argue the street cannot accommodate 28 more vehicles. Yet, Member Baranski answered that segment when she commented that the employees’ personal vehicles and the work related diesel trucks parked on-site. Furthermore the work trucks emitted exhaust and transported noxious materials. Third, the applicant cannot attain the benefit with 10 units without impairing the traffic conditions. Mr. Keaney explained earlier in the meeting that given the size of the building, 10 units would result in three bedroom apartments at increased rents. However, the units would attract clusters of adults who would pool resources to cover the rental price, resulting in a higher number of vehicles. \\cohoes.local\CoC-Data\Users\mashline-heil\Boards, Commissions, & Agencies\ZBA\ZBA\minutes\ZBA minutes 2015\ZBA Minutes 5.27.2015.doc Fourth, the variance is for an additional four units - less than half the permitted units. Furthermore, the existing space could accommodate a higher number of units. In fact, Mr. Keaney started with 16 apartments and reduced the request to 14. Fifth, Member Baranski pointed out earlier that the proposed variance will not adversely affect the physical or environmental conditions. In fact, the proposal is less harmful than the diesel trucks. In addition, the applicant has reclaimed some green space from the existing parking lot. Sixth the alleged difficulty was not self-created. As previously discussed for the use variance, the building was constructed prior to the surrounding homes. In fact, the size and property values of the surrounding homes dictate the marketability of the proposed residential units. Therefore, Member Baranski moved to approve the area variance. Member Cotch seconded the motion which passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN John Hughes X Joyce Baranski X Frank Houle ABSENT Mark Cotch X Member Cotch moved to adjourn at 7:40 PM seconded by Member Baranski. The motion passed unanimously. \\cohoes.local\CoC-Data\Users\mashline-heil\Boards, Commissions, & Agencies\ZBA\ZBA\minutes\ZBA minutes 2015\ZBA Minutes 5.27.2015.doc