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, SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 AT 6:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Michael Briggs, Chairperson Ms. Joyce Baranski, Vice Chairperson Mr. Mark Cotch Mr. Paul Heroux MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Robyn Reynolds, Deputy Director of Economic Development & Planning CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM AUGUST 22, 2018 MEETING Chairperson Briggs called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm and asked for the consideration of the August 22, 2018 meeting minutes. There being no questions, Member Heroux made a motion to approve the meeting minutes, which Member Cotch seconded and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Gary Sawyer Paul Heroux X Consideration of an Area Variance for a shed at 45 Pleasant Court Chairperson Briggs read the proposal aloud in which the applicant was requesting an 8’ variance from the side property line to install a shed closer to his driveway. Chairperson Briggs noted the conditions which the Board must consider when examining an area variance, which would apply to all area variances in front of the Board that evening. Mr. Buckley of 45 Pleasant Court appeared in front of the Board and discussed the siting of the shed, noting that a previous owner had a shed in that location. Chairperson Briggs asked if there was a sign posted on the property and if the neighbors had received the letters, which R. Reynolds answered affirmatively. Chairperson Briggs asked if there was any way to move this further from the property line, which Mr. Buckley noted that due to the dimensions of the house against the property line, other options would be much less feasible. Member Cotch asked if there was a shed on the other side of the fence on the neighboring property, to which Mr. Buckley answered affirmatively and noted there would be a concrete pad abutting the property line. There being no further questions, Member Heroux made a motion to approve the 8’ variance from the side property line, which Chairperson Briggs seconded and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Gary Sawyer Paul Heroux X Consideration of an Area Variance for a private swimming pool at 126 Simmons Avenue Chairperson Briggs read the proposal aloud which noted that the applicant was seeking a 23 foot variance from the front setback requirement for a private swimming pool in the side yard of her property. Ms. LaForest of 126 Simmons Avenue noted that the backyard is all trees, which is why it was desired that it be placed in that location. Chairperson Briggs asked if there were any neighbors present who wanted to make comments, which there were none. Member Cotch noted there seemed to be plenty of space. With there being no further questions, Chairperson Briggs made a motion to approve the area variance for 23 feet, which was seconded by Vice Chairperson Baranski and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Gary Sawyer Paul Heroux X Consideration of an Area Variance amendment at 628 Saratoga Street R. Reynolds explained that the applicant noted that an amendment was needed as the proposed structure presented at during the last meeting actually measured 87 feet instead of 80 feet, therefore adding 7 feet to the variance, which was originally 35 feet (and would now be 42 feet). R. Reynolds noted that while this is not entirely substantial, it would still need to be amended by the Zoning Board of Appeals. R. Reynolds also noted that the County Planning Board had some recommendations in terms of notifications to the Federal Air Administration and the NYS DEC. There being no questions, Member Heroux made a motion to approve an amended variance to include recommendations from the Albany County Planning Board as well as to account for the 87 foot structure, which was seconded by Member Cotch and passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Gary Sawyer Paul Heroux X Consideration of an Area Variance for a sign at 218 Columbia Street Chairperson Briggs read the proposal aloud which noted that the entire proposal included demolishing the structures on 218 Columbia Street and reconstructing a neighborhood gasoline station on the site. Chairperson Briggs noted that the requested variance was for the height of the sign, which would need a 3.4’ variance for the lower height of the sight as well as for the setbacks as the applicant would need a 10’ variance from both Columbia Street and Mann Avenue. Chairperson Briggs opened the floor for public comment. A neighbor asked about sidewalks, which was confirmed that there would still be sidewalks. Another resident asked about the lighting of the sign, which was confirmed there would be lighting. Another resident noted concerns over the history of the zoning of the site and stated objections over the height of the sign and the zoning of this specific parcel for a gas station. Chairperson Briggs noted that the ZBA does not have control over the specific zoning of parcels, as that is what the zoning code notes. Another audience member stated that traffic would likely increase, and noted that this development was not consistent with the character of the neighborhood and expressed a concern over the sign obstructing the sidewalks. Chairperson Briggs pointed out that the sign would not be in the way of sidewalks, but set back from the sidewalks. Another audience member asked why it was zoned for a gas station and R. Reynolds noted that the zoning code was revisited last year but that this site had hosted a gas station and it’s currently zoned MU-1, which it was previously, but that there’s a different zoning district in the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Hennessey, representing the site owner, presented the elements on the site that were consistent with the zoning code and that they are trying to meet requirements to minimize the impact of the project on the residents. Mr. Hennessey pointed out that they are requesting the sign sit 12 feet above grade as opposed to 7’ above grade which is higher than DOT standards. Mr. Hennessy noted that they are requesting a 5’ setback from the property line for the sign which would place the sign in the same location as the previous owner’s sign and that they are asking for a smaller size store than they normally would due to community character. An audience member inquired about the business hours, which the applicant noted would be 5 am to 10 pm, which an audience member noted was not the previous hours. An audience member asked if there would be a limit on operating hours, which Chairperson Briggs confirmed that the ZBA was only reviewing the placement of the sign. An audience member raised concerns over relocating the sign in the driveway, to which Mr. Hennessey pointed out it would be on the property, not in the roadway and the applicant noted that sign visibility is important to the business. Audience members raised concerns over the siting of the sign in terms of the height and also that the sign would be visually distracting. Mr. Hennessey responded by noting that the setbacks would be a visual concern, and not a traffic concern and Chairperson Briggs pointed out that there are visual impacts on the site no matter what and that the site was once occupied by used cars. Mr. Hennessey noted that they are trying to comply with the setback requirements as best they can, but that they were willing to move the sign up so that it was farther away from Mann Avenue, which would eliminate the need for one of the variances. Audience members noted concerns over it being distracting and lit too long as well as the canopy being too tall. Chairperson Briggs asked the applicant if they could look into dimmable LEDs for the sign as this would mitigate some of the impacts of the sign being on after dark. Chairperson Briggs also asked that the audience members try to look at other signs in the area for a comparison. Mr. Hennessey noted there may not be an exactly comparable sign in the area, but that they are very close to meeting the requirements of the zoning code, except location. Mr. Hennessey noted that they would look into the dimming practices and talk to the manufacturer. Chairperson Briggs noted he appreciated them trying to comply with the zoning code by moving the sign in one direction and that the sign would be in the exact location that Gerard’s had the sign located. R. Reynolds noted that since this is under SEQR review by the Planning Board, the Zoning Board could not make a decision at this meeting. Audience members inquired when the next Planning Board meeting would be, which R. Reynolds noted that due to the holiday, it may be rescheduled and that it would be posted to the City website and she would distribute the information on the agenda when it’s available. Adjournment There being no further business, Chairperson Briggs made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:18 pm, which was seconded by Member Heroux and passed unanimously.