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, JUNE 26, 2019 AT 6:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Michael Briggs, Chairperson Ms. Joyce Baranski, Vice Chairperson Mr. Mark Cotch Ms. Mary Shanks Mr. Paul Heroux MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Robyn King, Deputy Director of Economic Development & Planning CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM MAY 22, 2019 MEETING Chairperson Briggs called the meeting to order at 6:29 pm and asked for the Board to review and comment on the May 22, 2019 meeting minutes. There being no questions, Member Cotch made a motion to approve the meeting minutes, which Member Shanks seconded and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs Absent Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Paul Heroux X Mary Shanks X CONSIDERATION OF AN AREA VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 5 RUDOLPH COURT Chairperson Briggs read through the six points that the Zoning Board of Appeals must consider when reviewing area variances, which will apply to all area variances under consideration at the meeting. Chairperson Briggs then described the proposal, which is to install a small shed, 10 feet by 12 feet that would sit four feet from the side property line at 5 Rudolph Court. He stated that the applicant was Daniel Brady, that it was in the R-1 District, and it’s a Type II Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Chairperson Briggs noted that the request was for a six foot variance from the side property line requirement. Chairperson Briggs then asked the applicant to approach the Board. Mr. Daniel Brady of 5 Rudolph Court noted that he did want to install the 10 by 12 foot shed four feet from his property line and noted there was an easement on that side of the property. Mr. Brady noted he talked to his neighbor who had no issue with the proposal and also that he’s the only house on the corner and so this would really only affect that neighbor. Chairperson Briggs asked if there were any questions and there being none, Member Heroux made a motion to approve the 6 foot variance from the side property line, which was seconded by Chairperson Briggs and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Paul Heroux X Mary Shanks X CONSIDERATION OF AN AREA VARIANCE FOR LOT SIZE AND LOT WIDTH FOR A TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING AT 27 MCELWAIN AVENUE Chairperson Briggs read the proposal aloud which noted that the applicant was interested in converting the one-family residential dwelling into a two-family residential dwelling and that in order to proceed, the property owner would need two variances, one for the lot size and another for the lot width. Chairperson Briggs asked the applicant to approach the Board. Dustin Krause approached the Board and noted he has owned the house for five years and he was interested in converting the fully finished basement into a one-bedroom apartment as he never uses it. He would like to see the space fully occupied as it’s well maintained. Chairperson Briggs asked if there were already two separate electric meters installed, and Mr. Krause noted that there was only one. Chairperson Briggs looked at the pictures provided by the applicant. Member Cotch asked if the applicant was planning on finishing the upstairs, and Mr. Krause noted he lived in the upstairs unit. There being no further questions, R. King noted that the approval would need to be contingent upon Planning Board approval. Chairperson Briggs made a motion to approve the two variances for the conversion of the single family residence into a two-family residence which was seconded by Vice Chairperson Baranski, who noted that she lives around the corner and is very impressed by the work that Mr. Krause had done to renovate the home. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Paul Heroux X Mary Shanks X CONSIDERATION OF AREA VARIANCES FOR A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING AT 52 PARK AVENUE Chairperson Briggs read the proposal aloud and noted that the property fronted on Park Avenue and that the variances pertained to lot width, lot size, parking, and green space. Chairperson Briggs also noted that this property is in the R-2 Zoning District and that this would be considered Type II under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Chairperson Briggs asked the applicant to appear in front of the Board and describe the proposal. Mr. Fred Metzger, appearing on behalf of Anthony LePage, appeared and noted that Mr. LePage was looking to develop a new two-family residential structure on the lot and that the lot size and lot width variances are very common given that a lot of these lots were created before zoning existed. Mr. Metzger noted that the parking variance was needed given that Mr. LePage is trying to provide additional parking for the development adjacent to the site which he owns. Mr. Metzger explained that the additional parking limits the green space on site, and that the parking area will be adjacent to the house. Chairperson Briggs asked if there were any questions from the audience, and a neighbor asked where the parking would be located. Mr. Metzger pointed this out to her on a map. The neighbor asked what the total off-street parking would be, and Mr. Metzger noted that there would be six spaces, which is one space per unit including the adjacent development which is required by the zoning code. The audience member asked about the parking already on site, and Mr. Metzger clarified that the parking is both for the new two-family and also for the adjacent development. The audience member expressed that she was concerned that there was already a parking shortage and this would add to that problem, and Mr. Metzger explained that this proposal would make space for additional off-street parking to alleviate this issue. The audience member noted she is a neighbor and has been in the neighborhood since the 1940’s and that she was upset there would be another absentee landlord in the neighborhood. Chairperson Briggs noted that the developer is a Cohoes resident and that the Board could not determine whether or not there would be an absentee landlord. The audience member noted that she is concerned that he would not live in the house, and Chairperson Briggs noted that generally speaking, absentee landlords do not reside in the City. The audience member noted that she continued to be concerned about parking, and Mr. Metzger noted that they are trying to provide additional parking off-site for the residents in the two-family and adjacent development to use. Mr. Metzger showed the audience member the specific parking areas included in the design and that while he understood the parking issue, if there were excessive parking standards and the lot sizes were considered to be a barrier, then lots would stay vacant. Chairperson Briggs noted that the Board often heard about parking issues and understands that there may be some parking issues in the Downtown area and in some other areas of the City, but that for this variance they were specifically looking at where the parking was located on the site, and not the parking issues themselves. The audience member asked that if there are four parking spaces, how would the people be able to access them. Mr. Metzger noted that they would need to piggyback the parking and also that the new tenants would not have to take up any off-street parking. Chairperson Briggs noted that he knew Mr. LePage and that there can be a request that he have his tenants only park on-site. The audience member noted that snow storage has been an issue in the area, and Mr. Metzger noted that Mr. LePage is planning on storing snow on-site. Chairperson Briggs asked if there were any questions from the Board, and there being none noted that he understood the variance needed for green space given the parking needs. Mr. Metzger noted that he could push the green space higher, but then the parking would not be as robust. R. King noted that the application would need to be reviewed by the Traffic Commission but that the plot plan had been shared with the Traffic Engineer and he saw no substantial concerns. Member Cotch asked if the garage would stay there, and Mr. Metzger noted that it would. Member Cotch asked if there were any renderings, and Mr. Metzger noted there weren’t but it would look like some of his other work. Mr. Metzger noted that they had already received Planning Board approval and that it was contingent upon the variances. The audience member noted that eight years ago, there was another proposal to build on this lot, and it never went through. Chairperson Briggs noted that he’s aware that Mr. LePage owns property on Melville Avenue and Mr. Metzger described the parking associated with other LePage developments. There being no further questions, Member Heroux made a motion to approve the lot width, lot size, parking, and green space variances, which was seconded by Member Shanks and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Paul Heroux X Mary Shanks X CONSIDERATION OF A USE VARIANCE FOR A TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 77 PULASKI STREET Chairperson Briggs noted that the applicant was proposing to convert a one-family into a two- family at 77 Pulaski Street and that the selling agent noted that the home currently has two identical units and that prior to 1999 this house was classified in assessment records as a two- family residence, but that there were no residential occupancy permits on record indicating this was a two-family residence. Victoria Gettings, representing the owner, noted that she was the real estate broker for the buyer who is trying to buy the property as a two-family and the listing agent had listed it as a one- family. Ms. Gettings noted that the home was set up as a two-family and has been owned by the same family for 80 years and that the family never requested residential occupancy permits as it had been in the family for all of this time and was never rented to anyone else. Ms. Gettings noted that the appraiser noted it was the highest and best-use as a two-family and that it was not advisable to list it as a one-family given the identical layout of the two-units in the house. Ms. Gettings also pointed out that the property was surrounded by other two-family residences. Chairperson Briggs noted that while the other matters on the agenda were area variances, this was a use variance read aloud the points that the Board needed to consider in reviewing a use variance. Chairperson Briggs noted that in going along with these considerations, he could see that the applicant met the tests of a use variance. Ms. Gettings noted that they had submitted evidence that they could not realize a substantial return by the appraisal documentation which noted that the highest and best use of the property is a two-family residential dwelling. Chairperson Briggs noted it was unique and Ms. Gettings noted that they cannot sell it as a single-family and that the appraiser would not appraise it as such. Member Heroux noted he thought that the proposal met all of the considerations required and Chairperson Briggs noted that it’s not often there’s a use variance proposal but this is an interesting proposal. Member Heroux noted that the building had been the same for a period of 80 years. Ms. Gettings noted they were surprised by the tax records given the units are identical and that all of the surrounding properties are the same. Chairperson Briggs asked if there were any questions from the Board or from the audience and there were none. Vice Chairperson Baranski made a motion to approve the use variance, which was seconded by Chairperson Briggs and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski X Mark Cotch X Paul Heroux X Mary Shanks X Adjournment There being no further business, Member Heroux made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:02 pm, which was seconded by Member Shanks and passed unanimously.