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, DECEMBER 19, 2018 AT 6:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Michael Briggs, Chairperson Ms. Joyce Baranski, Vice Chairperson Mr. Mark Cotch Ms. Mary Shanks MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Paul Heroux ALSO PRESENT: Robyn Reynolds, Deputy Director of Economic Development & Planning CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 28, 2018 MEETING Chairperson Briggs called the meeting to order at 6:27 pm and asked for the Board to review and comment on the November 28, 2018 meeting minutes. There being no questions, Member Cotch made a motion to approve the meeting minutes, which Chairperson Briggs seconded and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Paul Heroux Absent Mary Shanks X CONSIDERATION OF AN AREA VARIANCE FOR A FENCE AT 65 CONGRESS STREET Dan O’Neill, the owner of 65 Congress street noted that he submitted an application to construct a 10’ privacy fence around three corners of the lot so that it may be a backdrop for photos, it would be more secure for guests, and a tangible barrier for the property. Mr. O’Neill noted he had recently gotten approved for a microbrewery and winery on the property and more guests would be coming to the property within the coming months. Mr. O’Neill explained there was a 4’ existing chain link fence and a temporary fence abutting St. Joseph’s and Lancaster Street but that the neighbors can be fairly loud. Mr. O’Neill noted there used to be a larger fence on site, and presented some materials for the Board to view on what he was considering constructing, which is a wooden-burned slat fence. Mr. O’Neill also pointed out that he would like to have electrical wires within the fence for cameras, lights, and to possibly install banners in the future. R. Reynolds noted there are some additional sign regulations that may have to be considered if that plan moves forward. Mr. O’Neill noted his additional concerns over the fence were graffiti and snowploughs, but he would like the fence for security and for the courtyard area to host a more scenic area for photos in the future. Chairperson Briggs asked if the proposed fence would be located directly on the property line, which Mr. O’Neill confirmed. R. Reynolds pointed out that there would technically be two variances, given that the fence was over 6 feet in height. Chairperson Briggs stated that historically, the Zoning Board of Appeals had not granted a variance for a 10 foot fence, but that 8 feet might be more manageable as the Board would not want to set a precedent. Mr. O’Neill noted he would only want the solid part of the fence to be 8 feet tall, but the other parts of the fence may extend to 10 feet. R. Reynolds clarified that the Zoning Code did not make a distinction over the sight-line of the fence versus see-through adornments in terms of height. Mr. O’Neill noted that he did not think there would be the same impacts as with other properties which abut neighbors. Chairperson Briggs noted the proposal seemed well thought out and suggested that the approval include a stipulation that the fence would only be 8 feet tall, but that other elements could reach 10 feet, so long as they were utility-based, such as adornments or cables. Chairperson Briggs then made a motion to approve the 4 foot height variance and 10 foot setback variance subject to the fence sight-line reaching 8 feet and any additional elements not exceeding 10 feet, which was seconded by Member Shanks. The motion passed unanimously, and Member Baranski noted that while she believed the proposal to be well thought out, she hoped future owners would be as responsible. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Paul Heroux Absent Mary Shanks X CONSIDERATION OF AREA VARIANCES FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 49 PLEASANT STREET Chairperson Briggs read the proposal aloud stating that the variances requested were for lot size, side setbacks, and for lot width. Todd Drake, the applicant, noted that although he was not planning to build a single family home in the immediate future, he wanted to gain approvals for the variances needed to build a single family home on the lot which would be a modest two-story home. Audience members asked how large the new home would be, which Mr. Drake answered would be somewhere around 1,600 square feet. The audience members asked how far back the home would sit from their fence, which Mr. Drake noted the current garage on the property is closer to their fence than the new home would be. Mr. Drake noted to the neighbors that he would happily work with them to ensure the new home would be consistent with their home and offer privacy. The neighbors noted that they were concerned about stormwater runoff, which Mr. Drake noted would be addressed as part of the permitting process. The neighbors noted it’s been an issue for them, and Mr. Drake noted he would ensure that the new project did not add any runoff during the building and engineering review of the project and that he would include them on the building process. Chairperson Briggs asked if there were any other questions or concerns on the project. Member Cotch asked if it’s always been an empty lot and Mr. Drake noted that while there is currently a garage on the lot there used to be a house or trailer on-site. Chairperson Briggs asked if the current garage would be demolished, which Mr. Drake confirmed it would be although it’s in use now. Chairperson Briggs asked if there were any additional questions, and there being none, Member Baranski made a motion to approve the side setback variances, the lot size variance, and the lot width variance for a single family home which was seconded by Member Cotch and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Paul Heroux Absent Mary Shanks X Adjournment There being no further business, Chairperson Briggs made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:55 pm, which was seconded by Member Cotch and passed unanimously.