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, August 22, 2018 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Michael Briggs, Chairperson Ms. Joyce Baranski, Vice Chairperson Mr. Mark Cotch MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Paul Heroux ALSO PRESENT: Robyn Reynolds, Deputy Director of Economic Development & Planning CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM JULY 25, 2018 MEETING Chairperson Briggs called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm and asked for the consideration of the July 25, 2018 meeting minutes. Chairperson Briggs noted that Mr. Cotch had been noted as being present, which he was not and asked that this be corrected. A motion was made by Chairperson Briggs to approve the meeting minutes with the change noted and it passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Gary Sawyer Paul Heroux Consideration of an Area Variance for a mechanical structure at 628 Saratoga Street Chairperson Briggs read the proposal aloud which noted that Norlite, LLC intended to install a new structure which would measure 80’ in height, which would necessitate an area variance as the maximum height allowed in the Industrial District is 45’. David Maguffin from Norlite, LLC made a presentation to the public pointing out some of the features of the new piece of equipment including that it is more environmentally-friendly as it emits less pollution and is more efficient. Mr. Maguffin noted that this would not allow Norlite to increase production, but improve technology and automate the process. Chairperson Briggs inquired as to whether or not the County has reviewed this, and R. Reynolds noted that it would need to be reviewed before a final determination could be made. Member Cotch asked about operating hours, to which Mr. Maguffin noted that it would be a continuous operation (24/7/365). An audience member noted that Mr. Maguffin had stated that it would use green energy and asked what kind of energy would be used. Mr. Maguffin noted that it would be using waste recycling but no solar or wind. There being no further questions, Chairperson Briggs made a motion to give approval of the area variance of 80’ conditional to the recommendations of the Albany County Planning Board, which Member Cotch seconded. The motion passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Gary Sawyer Paul Heroux Consideration of an Area Variance for a garage at 272 Central Avenue Chairperson Briggs read aloud the proposal which noted that the applicant would be installing a 20 by 20 garage to store vehicles and small materials which required no setbacks on the back and right side of the property, and a 1.52 foot setback on the left side of the property. The applicant noted he would be fine with installing a 20 foot by 12 foot garage if this made more sense to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Member Cotch asked if there was already a shed there, and the applicant confirmed that there was a pre-existing 10 foot by 10 foot shed that would be taken down. There was discussion of dimensions of the shed in terms of getting the most space for storage, but also allowing back access to the property in terms of fire and safety. Neighbors of the property owner appeared and noted they had no issue with the original design, or for the shed to be smaller than proposed. Chairperson Briggs asked the applicant if a 20 foot by 14 foot garage would meet his needs, which the applicant noted would make sense. Chairperson Briggs made a motion to approve the area variance for a 20 foot by 14 foot garage with a 2 foot setback on the north side of the property, a 2 foot setback on the west side of the property and a 5.43 foot setback on the south side of the property. Vice Chairperson Baranski seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Gary Sawyer Paul Heroux Consideration of a Use Variance at 37 Lincoln Avenue Chairperson Briggs read the proposal aloud which stated that the applicant was asking for a use variance to install a private swimming pool in the MU-1 District. The applicant noted that the pool had already been installed and met all applicable setbacks in other districts. She stated that it had been a professional installation completed by A-Frame Pools, that it had already been inspected, and that there are plenty of neighbors with pools in the neighborhood. There being no questions, Member Cotch made a motion to approve the use variance for the private swimming pool at 37 Lincoln Avenue, which Vice Chairperson Baranski seconded and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Gary Sawyer Paul Heroux Consideration of an Area Variance for 12 Lincoln Avenue Chairperson Briggs read the proposal aloud which stated that the applicant was seeking an area variance to install a shed 2’ from the property line at 12 Lincoln Avenue in the multi-family residential district. The applicant noted that there was an existing foundation and that the property was next to a vacant parcel of land and had a fence next to it. There was discussion of the dimensions of the shed and whether or not it could be moved closer to the middle of the yard, which the applicant noted wouldn’t make sense since there was a pre- existing slab on the property. The Board confirmed that there were no neighbor issues, given that they were next to vacant land. There being no further questions, Chairperson Briggs made a motion to approve the 8’ variance on the side of the property for the 8 foot by 10 foot shed, which was seconded by Member Cotch and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Gary Sawyer Paul Heroux Consideration of an Area Variance for 8 Lansing Lane Chairperson Briggs read the proposal aloud stating that the applicant was seeking an area variance of 8 feet for a deck in the backyard of the property. The applicant noted that he had already started building the deck as he is a professional in the industry, but stopped when he was notified he needed a permit. The applicant explained that the deck would have abutted hedges, but that the hedges had recently been cut back by a neighbor and that they were legacy hedges which had grown over decades. Chairperson Briggs noted that the Board’s main concern was the proximity to the property line. Chairperson Briggs asked if there were any neighbors present who had concerns. The neighbor immediately adjacent to the property made comments to the Board that she was a new homeowner as of July 16h and she was unaware that the hedges were not on their property as they were growing very tall. She noted she had cut some of the hedges down as they encroached on her property. She noted that she did not have any real issues with the deck, but wanted to make sure there was enough distance between the deck and her property so that there was adequate privacy. She also noted that there was a large backyard in the property and didn’t understand why the deck needed to be so close to the property line. The applicant noted that the hedges had been there for as long as they had lived in the house and that the deck was being built in a way so that they could enjoy their backyard, which was on a slope. Chairperson Briggs noted that a middle ground would be to install a privacy fence between the new deck and the property line and that this was the recommendation. The applicant noted that this could be accomplished. Chairperson Briggs made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that the applicant install a privacy fence between the deck and the adjacent property line, which was seconded by Member Cotch. The motion passed unanimously. The property owner asked how far back the fencing needed to extend and asked that he was able to keep the hedges. There was an agreement that the fence should be installed within a reasonable timeframe and to have the fence extend far enough to give adequate privacy around the deck area. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Gary Sawyer Paul Heroux Consideration of an Area Variance for 385 Saratoga Street M. Cherubino appeared on behalf of the Community Builders and explained the variances needed for the project to continue as designed, which included a slanted setback variance given that the building was angled and also a variance for the quantity of units as the City Zoning Code only allows 10 units maximum for a multi-family residential structure. M. Cherubino explained that the Community Builders wanted it to be set back from Saratoga Street farther to give more curb appeal. Member Cotch confirmed the location of the project as across from Kellman’s, which M. Cherubino noted was correct and noted that Kellman’s intends to buffer as 787 work continues. M. Cherubino also discussed banking the parking allotted for future needs. Chairperson Briggs made a motion to approve the area variances for the setbacks as well as for the quantity of units, which Member Cotch seconded. The motion passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Gary Sawyer Paul Heroux Consideration of an Area Variance for 299-401 Saratoga Street (JUNCTA Subdivision) Chairperson Briggs noted that they had reviewed the variances and held the public hearing at the last meeting and did not hear any negative comments from the neighboring properties. R. Reynolds explained the procedure for the review of the variance for the land-locked parcel in the proposed subdivision as this was the only variance needed. Chairperson Briggs made a motion to approve the variance for the land-locked parcel, given that it was under contract to be sold to the adjacent property owners and therefore would not be land- locked in the future. Member Cotch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Gary Sawyer Paul Heroux Adjournment There being no further business, Chairperson Briggs made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:31 pm, which was seconded by Member Cotch and the motion passed unanimously.