Zoning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD VIRTUALLY VIA THE ZOOM APPLICATION ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2020 AT 6:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Michael Briggs, Chairperson Ms. Mary Shanks Mr. Mark Cotch Mr. Greg Mollnow MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Joyce Baranski, Vice Chairperson ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Seman-Graves, City Planner CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE February 26, 2020 MEETING Chairperson Briggs called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm and asked for the Board to review and comment on the February 26, 2020 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 Absent Mark Cotch X Greg Mollnow X Mary Shanks X CONSIDERATION OF A USE VARIANCE AND AREA VARIANCE FOR 112 SIMMONS AVENUE: Chairperson Briggs asked the applicant to give an overview of their project. Ms. Tammy Hinkel gave an overview of the project, stating that the proposed variance would actually be reducing the amount of people in the building since the large one-unit on the top floor would be turned into several smaller one-bedroom units. Mr. Joseph Seman-Graves than proceeded to reading the comments that were sent in prior to the meeting. Robert and Lisa Laforest from 126 Simmons Ave. said that they strongly oppose any of the requested re zoning variances for this property. To begin with this 2 family house Is already situated on a very small city lot with a narrow street in a densely populated neighborhood. They recently purchased this property as a two family and the only reason for the requested variances is for their own personal gain at the expense of the integrity of our neighborhood .We strongly oppose any changes to this property. Mr. Craig Davin from 120 Simmons Avenue said I would like to provide comments on the letter I received for the owner of 112 Simmons Avenue seeking an area and use variance from the Zoning Code for converting the existing two family into a 3 family. The street parking on this end of Simmons Avenue is extremely tight, even with adding driveway parking it would increase the crowding. I applied for a three family variance for my current two family back in the Spring of 2016 and was denied due to the concern of increased street parking, etc. even though the driveway located on my property is either longer or the same as 112 Simmons. I only see two means of egress from the street, where would the means of egress be for the third unit? Mr Thomas G. Clingan of 135 Simmons Avenue said I understand that the owner of 112 Simmons Avenue has submitted an application to the Planning Board for permission to add yet another apartment to this two-apartment building. This part of Simmons Avenue (immediately south of Columbia Street) is currently extremely congested with parked vehicles on both sides, making it difficult for cars to pass through even during normal times of the year, let alone during winter conditions. At present it is common to see cars parked on both sides of the street all the way to Columbia Street itself, which makes turning onto Simmons Avenue difficult and sometimes dangerous. Planning Commission members can see this for themselves, if they drive down this block on any evening. This past winter, I personally witnessed a Cohoes City plow truck attempt to clear just the center portion of that section of that section of our street. After several tries, the plow truck operator had to abandon the attempt and back up the snowplow instead - there were just too many parked cars blocking the way. No fire truck could ever have been able to get through that bottleneck, let alone a garbage truck. Even the addition of just one more apartment - which would add one, two or possible even three more vehicles needing on- street parking - would make this bad situation even worse. I understand that the public can no longer attend Planning Commission meetings due to the state of emergency. Please let me know if I need to send a written letter to express my firm opposition to this proposal, or if this email will suffice. Thank you, and the Planning Board, for your consideration. Rachel and Nicholas Sciollino said the property owner at 112 Simmons Ave has requested zoning and area variances to change the existing structure from a two-family unit to a three- family unit. We, as neighbors who would be impacted by this change, would like to request that the Zoning Board reject these variances based upon the following concerns: Simmons Ave is a very narrow street, and the neighbors in the vicinity of the proposed variances live in tight proximity to each other. As such they each try to respect each other and create a quiet, comfortable, respectful living environment that makes us all “Cohoes Proud.” Simmons Ave is currently zoned R-1 and R-2, making it a street of mainly single and two-unit dwellings, which is a good balance for the neighborhood/street. Adding additional units will create additional noise, traffic, parking issues and disturbances to the living environment. Although many of us are now working from home because of the pandemic situation, we have performed our primary work functions from home since before this time and will continue to do so after the quarantine is over. The noise situation prior to the Governor’s stay-at-home order was already about as disruptive as one would expect with barking dogs, cars playing loud music, delivery drivers, children playing, and neighbors going about their normal lives. Unfortunately, adding additional units to this already tightly-packed area will likely increase that level of noise. This will not only further negatively affect the quiet enjoyment of our property and quality of life in the neighborhood but make working from home all the more difficult. We cannot choose to work someplace else, but the board can choose to reject these variances. Street parking and navigating through the area of the proposed variances (near the corner of Simmons and Columbia St.) is currently a substantial challenge for all Simmons Ave residents who use this as an access point. The road is significantly narrower than the streets that border it. This makes it difficult for cars and delivery vehicles to move safely through the area, and the issue is magnified when there is inclement weather or when neighbors have guests over. On an average day when there are vehicles present on both sides of the street, there are routinely jams and multi-vehicle clogs since only one car can make it down the street at once. Additionally, the neighbors who have driveways within 300 ft of the area are often unable to fully/comfortably utilize them because cars park in such a way that those residents need to perform multi-point turns to pull out. We own a pickup truck and are often unable to get it out of the driveway to perform important tasks because other vehicles park too close to the driveway or too far away from the curb. The parking/transit problems are compounded several times over during the winter months when there are piles of snow. Snow removal vehicles are not always able to make it through the area with their plows down, and waste/recycling vehicles have to maneuver carefully when street- parkers \ park far from the curbs. We have attached photos from the fall and March 2020 showing the street. Unfortunately, the current owner can be considered an absentee landlord when it comes to property maintenance. The neighbors in the vicinity of the proposed variance have had to perform snow removal and landscaping/lawn care for the tenants, who have frequently complained about the landlord’s lack of response with regard to the overgrown lawn and failure to remove snow in a timely manner. Following multiple large snowfall events, it has taken over 48 hours before the landlord’s snow removal team showed up, and the neighbors usually have to take care of the sidewalks and walkways. This is inconsiderate of the tenants and neighbors, in addition to creating unsafe conditions for children, students who walk to school, residents walking their dogs, runners, mail carriers, and commuters who are trying to reach the bus stop. When combined with the parking issues, this also creates a dangerous situation for emergency services and first responders. The property owner of 112 Simmons Ave has performed work in the upstairs apartment to modify it from one unit to two units prior to applying for this variance. Work has been performed without a permit being posted. After the owner was told to cease and desist, work was still being performed on multiple occasions. It is possible that the owner has applied for this permit and not posted it, but it does not inspire confidence that the property owner will follow through with any agreement or statements that they make to satisfy neighbors after they obtain these variances. Throughout our time living on the street, we have seen the police intervene in the affairs of the tenants at 112 Simmons Ave many times. Between our recollection and those of our neighbors, the police have been called for assault/battery, noise complaints, rowdy parties, domestic abuse, property damage, drug use, and case management for individuals on the sex crimes registry. The property owner has been contacted about these situations by other neighbors on several occasions,but continued to carry the month-to-month leases of these tenants. All of this would suggest that the property owner might be more concerned with generating a profit than being a responsible/reliable member of the neighborhood. With that in mind, adding another unit to this property brings with it an increased risk of disturbance in an already congested area. As stakeholders who have been directly and negatively affected by these events, the request to expand the property into a three- unit is unwelcome and worries us. Prior to the last month, only the downstairs tenants were parking in the driveway. During the time period when the variance was coming up for community comment, all of the tenants started to park in the driveway. We feel like that was deliberate. The attached photos were taken after the upstairs tenant started parking in the driveway. The tenants are parking very close to the neighbor’s fence and on the grass, tearing the area up. If this was being done to show the effectiveness of driveway utilization, it ignored the fact that the area was being damaged and potentially undermining our neighbors fencing. The tenants have also not been parking in the driveway area consistently, indicating that if a driveway were to be put in it would not be utilized. As such, the street-parking situation would continue to be a problem, especially with additional tenants. Side Setback Request: We assume this request is intended to pave a driveway closer to the neighbor than the standard setback that is required by code. Simmons Ave currently has a decent amount of green space that gives it a ‘cozy,’ residential neighborhood atmosphere. This change would be out of character for the neighborhood and inconsiderate to current and future neighbors. It negatively impacts the image of the surrounding area, which was one of the draws that motivated everyone here to purchase houses. As the Zoning Board reviews this request, we respectfully hope that they take into consideration our perspective as a young couple and neighbors to this property. We originally purchased our home because we loved the immediate area, green-spaces, and neighbors; we thought it was a great place to raise a family and saw Cohoes as a city moving onward and upward. Of course any urban area comes with drawbacks, but up until now those have been in keeping with the character of the Simmons Ave neighborhood. We are concerned about the direction that our street and city are headed in if absentee landlords like the property owner at 112 Simmons are allowed to continually expand without doing their due diligence as community members. We feel that a trend like this will deter resident homeowners like us who want to put down roots and raise a family in a pleasant and safe community around others who care about the neighborhood. We just don’t feel that squeezing in another unit is worth it. I'm Lynn Gerstein 105 Simmons Avenue. I did send send something in and my comments have not been read. Joseph Seman-Graves said I apologize. I updated the presentation this morning, if I miss something I do apologize, but please provide your comment now, sir. Lynn Gerstein said using this property to a multi-family dwelling introducing one bedroom apartments would be stabilized the traditional character that has been built up in the neighborhood over time. The subject driveway is already being used Beyond a safe capacity and the on-street parking in this immediate location is already very dense due to the adjacent to family dwellings with all due respect. We request clarification on the applicants proposal to reopen the driveway for additional off-street parking as stated in the letter received from the saw. This proposal must be explained in more detail. The current driveway was clearly designed as a single lane driveway and is being used as a two-lane driveway already now, which requires vehicles the park very close to the applicants porch the adjacent Property Owners fence and the other vehicle sharing this driveway beyond being a general eyesore and diminishing the adjacent property values. This causes a serious concern for the health and safety of residents if emergency personnel needed to maneuver themselves or equipment within these very tight spaces. After reviewing the city's zoning code the subject property appears to be zoned residential district R2 / the City Zoning code section a new multi-family dwelling does not appear to be a permitted use and it goes on to ask for clarification, which is already been given but in the letter received there was no mention of the actual multi-family dwelling code change our understanding of the zoning code aside we feel the existing long-standing two-family dwelling at 112 Simmons Avenue a new multi-family dwelling is inconsistent with the intent of the residential district 2 and we'll just diminish both the character of the neighborhood and the value of our properties. The purpose of this request a variance appears to be based solely on the desire for the property owner to make more money for themselves at the behest of the rest of the neighborhood and should not justify a variance to the City Zoning code. What would stop the property owner in the future from converting the first floor Apartments into two separate apartments as well as long-standing members of the neighborhood and community we request that the hose zoning board of appeals deny the zoning variance at 112 Simmons Ave. And this that's the end of the letter this letter was also and by a number of folks here nine separate people from within the community. Mr. Jospeh Seman-Graves asked if anyone else had comments. Ms. Tammy Hinkel said right now there's a capacity of six people in the unit upstairs. I want to actually change that to between two and four people so I basically cutting it in half and as for the driveway, we just want to add a strip next to the porch. We love the way that it was done years ago the fam this home. I got from my stepfather who lived in it for over 40 years maybe even longer and since I've got the building he hasn't he didn't do a lot of maintenance to it, but when we came in and we did a lot of maintenance and we're still doing upgrades to it all the time. There is a record to the building department haven't done anything without permission and I do agree with the issue with parking and snow removal there and that this is exactly why we want to change it will be quiet much more quiet less cars.What else I apologize for the tenants that were there when I bought the building there was a lot of police coming. They had a lot of people they had teenagers and adults move in. It took me a long time to have them removed. But we have wonderful people there now and that's what I intend to do is keep wonderful people there. So everyone understands were taking a one unit that has four bedrooms in it. And we're making it two units with only one bedroom beach. So we're literally cutting two bedrooms out of the scenario and the capacity of the building. Is being reduced. Chairperson Briggs said It's costing about $5,000 to convert the one apartment into two and there will be a profit of $300 a month. So you'll make a reasonable return and roughly a year and a half 18 months. We'll get you back in the black the alleged hardship real is the property is unique one would argue. It's not unique because there was public comment of someone and we looked it up. They applied for a multifamily resident use variance in the past and that was denied. So that would make this situation not unique. I would like to make a motion to to deny the use variance request at 112 Simmons Avenue. Mr. Greg Mollnow seconds the vote and it passes unanimously. Chairperson Briggs said since the use variance was turned down, we're not going to move to the area variances right now. Thank you to the applicant anyone who sent in public comment. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch X Greg Mollnow X Mary Shanks X CONSIDERATION OF AN AREA VARIANCE FOR 10 ROOSEVELT BOULEVARD: Chairperson Briggs; The proposal is for the construction of a wood frame detached garage and a covered porch structure. This is off of Columbia Street not too far from the other applicant area variants the maximum allowable height for an accessory structure and R1 residential zone is 15 feet. The applicant is constructing a wood frame detached garage and covered porch measuring 24 by 26 by 17 foot 11 with the proposed high of 17 foot 11. The applicant is Seeking a height variance of 2 foot 11 inches. Please note the six considerations for granting an area variance. The area variance will only be allowed if it meets these six criteria. There are no public comments and the applicant is not present. Questions from the board? Mr. Mark Cotch: why does he need a 17 foot 11. It's all garage? Mr. Joseph Seman-Graves: I spoke with the architect. The structure matches the existing character of the house and the extra height it's actually just open space for storage. So not necessarily just aesthetic. It matches the current Aesthetics, but also is includes room for overhead storage. Mr. Greg Mollnow: Yeah, I did a drive-by it significantly shorter, I guess then the residential structure and the aesthetic with matched is the front door of that has the highest steeple. I see I can see where the architect was coming from. Mr. Joseph Seman-Graves: Would the board like to make a determination?4 Mr. Greg Mollnow: Yeah, I'll make a motion to vote and approve the variance. \ Mr. Mark Cotch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch X Greg Mollnow X Mary Shanks X CONSIDERATION OF AN AREA VARIANCE FOR 129 CENTRAL AVENUE: Chairperson Briggs: The Proposal is the demolition of an existing reject an above ground pool to be replaced with an inground pool measuring 24 feet in length. We have the satellite view and a site plan to look at. The left shows the elevated Deck with the above-ground pool roughly 18 feet diameter and on the right superposed 24 foot long in-ground pool, the area variances and MFR multi-family residential zoning a swimming pool is allowable is an allowable specialty use with the following step back from Place front setback and 50 feet side setback of 10 feet and rear set back 10 feet. The applicants proposal only allow for a 5 foot 5 inch clearance from each end of the swimming pool to the adjacent property lines. The applicant will be seeking to side set back area variances of four foot five inches respectively considerations of an area variance are the same six considerations I read for the last one. Back and just additional considerations as quickly as the planning board will still need to conduct a site plan review for the proposed project. The planning board will also have to approve the property for a special use permit is that is required in MFR district for swimming pool and building permits cannot be issued until approvals are granted from the zoning board of appeals and the planning board. Does the applicant want to speak at all if your present? Ms. Nadine Poulin: Currently my house is 24 and a half feet wide. The garage is 20 feet wide. The previous owners are occupying 29 feet of the area and the pool itself, which would be 24 feet would be equal to the home it be directly behind the house. It would be using considerably a lot less space than its currently using now. Chairperson Briggs: Thank you Tammy. If you don’t have anything else to say we will open the floor for public comments. No public comments? Going once, going twice. Mr. Greg Mollnow: Was there a special use various granted for the above-ground pool? Ms. Nadine Poulin: When I purchased the house the pool and the decking were already there. We have our first floor is actually a second floor. We will walk out basement. So that deck was there that I went down to another deck to a pool. They have no idea. I do know the house was reassessed in 2013. Mr. Greg Mollnow: Quick question. Do you ever use alongside of your garage for parking or anything like that? Yeah, I do my son parks his truck there. But after this he will not be because that will be all closed off. That's all going to be fenced in because obviously would be an inground pool. So it be new fencing it would be all in close. Chairperson Briggs: Anybody like to make a motion? Mr. Greg Mollnow: I'll make a motion that we accept this variance. Chairperson Briggs: I will second that, being contingent upon Planning Board approval, motion passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch X Greg Mollnow X Mary Shanks X CONSIDERATION OF A USE VARIANCE FOR 309 VLIET/50 PLEASANT STREET Chairperson Briggs: Next item, the consideration of a use variance at 309 Vliet/50 Pleasant. The property is in the R-1 residential zoning District. The applicant is seeking a use variance from R1 residential to MFR multi-family residential. Applicant proposes the demolition of an existing two-family home measuring one hundred by a hundred and twenty feet and the proposed construction of a four unit multi-family structure on the footprint of the demolished building. Mr. Joseph Seman-Graves: If the applicant is present, there's some supporting documents that he provided, it might be a good time for him to speak. Mr. Todd Drake: I am present Joe. Financial documents, awesome – I will run through these. Well as you can see from the pictures that were chosen here the the turn the corner Parcels opposite the firehouse. I'm sure many people know that area. There are two buildings as Joe stated. I’ve owned the buildings for about 12 years and prior to that the Valentino's owned it for 25 years. So there’s always been two building on the property but with the two addresses, but nobody really knows the history. So it's a unique property in the city as it is so it's a multi-family property now and how it got there. Like I said, I don't think anybody really knows what it's 4 units now. And just to be clear. So the subject of this sort of you know over the request I guess is the front building the back building has some history. I think it was a store like a hardware store many years ago this front building. It says right on the street and you know, it's apparently wasn't maintained well to begin with and over the years. We discovered some real deficiencies one of them there is water flowing from the reservoir behind the firehouse, which I think somebody showed an overview of the Water Conservation District. Anyway, that water kind of folding into below this property. So what's happened is over time it would just fill with water. every winter somebody has to roll into four feet of water and try to get the water pumped out and then unfreeze the pipes and all this stuff it keep happening and become kind of a nightmare and over time has been an erosion in there and it's sort of exposed that there's really no foundation to speak of neither is but it's like hit or miss and over the years because this you know, these materials have been, you know, slowly decaying it's causing shifting. We have nobody living in the first floor. Now when the person moved out we got in and really sort of looking around and we started tearing up the floor. Try to see what the heck. Yeah, and we found that there were some you know, it just it just beyond saving and our tenants upstairs, you know are aware of the building beginning to kind of creek and settle and it's caused inconvenience to them and you know this building so we decided this building made sense. I have to admit it was an early purchase in my my days of looking at property and I didn't really understand how bad this would be in the long run. But in any event that said we'd like to make it a nicer piece of property in the neighborhood, you know. So, you know, we'd like to relocate, you know, hopefully our existing tennnts if they want to stay with us temporarily and then put up a new building and put them back in but in any event, so it's a front building. The rear building would remain so the rear building the Valentino's lived in the top floor, they were there for well over 30 years and they just recently moved out somebody else's there now. Too quiet people there. And what we seek to do is just take that building down, you know fill it in properly and put a little bit of parking space there and then shift the building over here and make a slightly larger building turn alongside. If we try to rebuild just a to family because of the cost of construction and arguably it might be confusing some may say that because you know, people say well it's easier It is bigger, but not that much bigger and it is a lot of economy of scale to make a building a little bit larger cost a lot less and to build the entire building from start to finish. So that's how the numbers work off. So if you just sort of walk through it if you look at I'm sorry. I'm pointing at this thing, which everybody can't see me do that again, but to replace the building and then, you know, make repairs to the building and back which need somemexterior jazzing up which we know is of course seasonality and then the covid crisis of prevented so hopefully in a couple weeks we can do that, you know, we would demolish the front structure, you know, following all of the guidelines and so forth and getting the appropriate service the we reconstruct the new new building which would cost around the $400,000 Mark and then we got the pay off the existing loan. Then we have to get a new loan cetera, you know in Japan Capital as well. So the capital costs are higher. But when you look at the projected Revenue to cover that, you know, it works out a lot better and you know, it also increase the tax revenue to the city and to the school district also because the units are small, it won't tax the school district because you know one bedroom units and don't it wouldn't be coded for multiple people would be coded for a one or two person at all. / so I think there's a There's a positive there in the district standpoint from a perking standpoint. There isn't a parking problem there now that I'm aware of. I mean most people park on Pleasant which has a lot of Drive, of course a big part of the road frontage and pleasant is the fire department and we do have off-street parking now and we would simply maintain that status of not having cars on the street. It wouldn't be, you know would really be a no change piece. Overall, in fact we have more parking which would be nice right now the way the tenants utilize it I don't I think maybe one person might Park in the streets. So that person would also come off the street. We would also have some nice greenery at the corner there that would Shield be no Neighbors from seeing course Park if that would fit someone might find that you know and slightly or what have you not that it's a huge perk on anything. But so we had some landscaping obviously to make it look good. So, right now you can see some greenery on the corner and it would look similar to that. We just put in some new stuff that you know taller arborvitae type stuff or the Norwegian spruce or something like that. The rear building would remain similar in color. So I hope I hope I hope at least covered under the broad Strokes. Chairperson Briggs: There are some additional considerations. The property in question is a residential Zone that has two principal buildings on the same lot. That's you know, mr. Drake brought that up and I mentioned it earlier. That's just a consideration to keep in mind additionally no single family or to family residential law shell had erected upon it more than one principal building. hile the applicant presented several iterations of the project to the planning board and to the applicant's credit. He has gone from the planning board three times. Looking at the scope and scale of this project but a full site plan review has still needs to be conducted. So this would this is zoning board of appeals, you know, if it is approved it would be pending a full site plan approval by the Zoning Board of approval or sorry the planning board and in only a final site plan will determine if any area their answers you need and so this is just looking at the use variance. Lets read the comments that were sent in. Ms. Margaret Giller of 31 Pleasant Street: I am writing in regard to the zoning board's receipt of request for variance on the property located at 50 Pleasant Street/309 Vliet Street. This request is a significant concern for myself and my family. I live at 31 Pleasant Street and did not receive a notice from the City about the request for a variance on this lot and was just notified about the meeting that is meant to be held on Wednesday, April 29th.The letter that was forwarded to me today indicated any issues needed to be addressed in writing by Friday, April 24th for consideration. I hope that you accept this correspondence beyond that specified deadline as I just became in receipt of it. We purchased this property in 2007 for it's quiet neighborhood which is surrounded by single family homes. The approval of a variance to construct a unit of this size will completely change the landscape of our neighborhood. Our side of Pleasant Street is a very small street with a total of 9 houses on it, we know each of our neighbors personally and have established a very nice place to live; one that our families feel safe in. The addition of a 4- unit apartment building and parking lot which has the potential to have a revolving tenant base, will have significant affect to this feeling of safety and security. Other potential safety concerns include, an already unsafe visual obstruction to turn onto Vliet Street from Pleasant Street. It is very difficult to see oncoming traffic when cars are parked on both Vliet and Pleasant. The turn onto Pleasant from Vliet is very narrow and often times when snow accumulates we are forced to a single lane, any increase in traffic will only exacerbate the issue. The location of the firehouse on the street causes a community concern for a timely response due to the items mentioned, which could burden them from being able to safely and effectively respond to emergencies. The owner of this property is not a Cohoes resident and does not have any regard for the community neighborhood which we have established here on Pleasant St. He was previously approved for a variance on a lot located directly across the street from my home to build a 2 story house facing straight into mine, impeding on our privacy, where a now vacant lot exists. We have already been forced to make sacrifices, not to mention it will increase the traffic on this very small and narrow street. I implore the board to consider the residents of this street and our desire to maintain a family orientated, quiet neighborhood. I have been a resident of this community for my entire life with the exception of 4 years. My husband and I are very active members of the community and made the choice to purchase a home and raise our 4 boys in Cohoes. We CHOOSE to live here and hope to have a voice in decisions made affecting our lives! Please maintain the integrity of our neighborhood to encourage family living and leave the apartment units to more densely populated areas of the City. I ask that you deny this variance based on what is best for the city and its residents and not what is best for a developer who works and resides outside our city boundaries. Nadia and Anthony Carey of 54 Pleasant Street: On Saturday, we received a letter in the mail indicating that our “neighbor at 50 Pleasant St./309 Vliet St.“ was seeking a variance for that property. As the owners and nearly 30 year occupants of 54 Pleasant St., we implore the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny this request. There are several concerns with the potential addition of a four unit rental, and accompanying ten car parking lot. Beyond the property in question, Pleasant Street is home to modest single family homes and the fire house, which is the largest structure on the street. If built as described, this structure would surely not be consistent with the look of the neighborhood. Beyond the negative visual impact, our street is a close-knit group of families who have chosen to own homes in an area where the potential for transient neighbors was minimal—we are here for the long haul, and the character of this neighborhood reflects that. In addition to the concern that a multi-family dwelling would change the character of the neighborhood, we worry about the increased traffic and parking. One entire side of Pleasant Street is marked as no parking/emergency lane, leaving only the right side for resident vehicle parking, which generally extends to the corner of Vliet Street, effectively making Pleasant Street a single lane. This is exacerbated in the winter, when snow further reduces the drive-able width of the narrow street. Any overflow street parking by the residents of this proposed dwelling would most certainly contribute to this issue. The most important objection, however, pertains to safety. Visibility turning out of Pleasant Street onto Vliet Street is limited, at best, by the existing structure and cars parked on Vliet Street. Adding an even larger structure, and more cars associated with it, will make this corner even more dangerous, more so in winter, when snow banks are high. There is no mention of which street will provide the access to the proposed parking lot, but neither is a safe choice. Cars exiting into Pleasant Street will have to swing into the road widely, around residents’ cars parked on the street. Please bear in mind that this property is directly across from the firehouse, which also puts them in the path of emergency vehicles entering and exiting. Additionally, there are no sidewalks on Pleasant Street, which also means our children are walking in the same road these cars will be turning in and out of. Locating the entrance on Vliet Streets adds a parking lot to the middle of a small residential block, and creates a similar issue with traffic turning out. If you are interested in the lack of commitment to this neighborhood that this property owner already has shown, please look no further than the “unimproved” lot at 47 Pleasant Street, for which this individual has been granted a variance to build a two story home at some point in the future. The lot is currently rented to another individual, who has added a very loud generator (with enclosure), a patio set behind the garage, and uses the property as a storage area, despite multiple complaints by neighbors. Our fear is that that with the approval of this latest variance, this non-resident property owner will continue to negatively impact our neighborhood. We cannot support the erection of an out-of-character dwelling, which would create a traffic and safety hazard on our small, quiet street. Mr. Paul Giller of 31 Pleasant Street: I am writing to vehemently oppose the zone variance request proposed by a non resident, realestate investor for the property on 309 Vliet St. Part of the charter of the zoning board is to determine: “Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance” It is abundantly clear that approving a multi family use variance for a 4-5 unit apartment complex and a parking lot in a single family zoned neighborhood is clearly a change to the zone charter of the neighborhood, and substantially will change the environment for all residence who have been paying taxes, specifically to maintain the nature of that neighborhood. In addition, the zoning board should fully consider the precedent that such a variance will make regarding the greater ward, and surrounding wards with similar zoning requirements…. I would ask the board to consider if they would appreciate multifamily apartment complexes built next to their single family homes, or whether they would consider such plans would create an undesirable change to the character of their neighborhood. The primary intent of single family zoned residential neighborhoods is to maintain strong relationships within a community, encourage property upkeep and shared neighborhood protection resident to resident. We have achieved that on Pleasant st, Berkely ave and Vliet st, its why we pay our taxes, why we participate in neighborhood watches and why we are making sure that our neighbors are safe and secure during this pandemic. If the zoning board approves a variance for a real estate developer who doesn’t have to live next to the character changes his investment creates, they will be doing so at the detriment of the community they are tasked to serve. It is my sincere hope and expectation that the Zoning board works on behalf of the tax paying citizens of the single family zoned areas of the city of Cohoes, rather than a politically connected real estate investor from Watervliet. Enough is enough. Mr. Jerr Savaria: To whom it may concern. As a owner and resident on the hill area of years I truly believe this project should not get approved. I reside in vliet blvd very close to where the apartments would be going up. It would not only alter the look of our hill area but add to the amount of traffic as well. That corner is already busy enough due to glen meadows and would only get worse. Please vliet me send my family as a no!!!!! Bernadette and Richard Glenn of 58 Meadowlark Drive: My name is Bernadette Glynn, I live at 58 Meadowlark Dr. around the corner from Pleasant Street. I am contacting you concerning the zoning board meeting this Wednesday, April 29, 2020. This is concerning the variance for 50 Pleasant Street/ 309 Vliet Street. We disagree with the variance. When we wanted to widen our driveway we were turned down, and this seems much more intrusive then that. Also, it would look horrible. There is no parking. We also don't want to pay for taxes for another apartment building, taxes are high enough. Mr. Timothy Peltier of 50 McDonald Drive: I’m writing this letter to state that I do NOT SUPPORT a variance for this project.This project would conflict with integrity and nature of the surrounding neighborhood. Also there’s not enough viable off street parking for this project.. Mr. Michael Fortin of 312 Vliet Boulevard: My name is Michael Fortin and I am the property owner and resident of 312 Vliet Blvd on the corner of Pleasant St. I would like it to be known that I am in strong opposition of the variance being requested at 50 Pleasant St. Thank you for your time. Mr. James K Casey Jr. of 309 Vliet Boulevard: I feel that this apartment complex should not be built in the area of 50 Pleasant/309 Vliet Blvd as this is the only real residential area left of Cohoes Hill, other than Columbia Street. This is a two family house, sure it needs work, but with the proper updates, it could be a beautiful place to live. What happens to the people that own homes in the area, does their home value go down due to this complex, do their taxes go up due to this? My family have resided at the 309 residence for 11 years, and one thing that drew us here was the quietness and the friendly neighborhood it sits in. Add an apartment complex, and you lose all that 90% of the time, because it turns to just a money gig, and not finding good tenants. Ms. Theresa Thibodeau of Kensington Square: My name is Theresa Thibodeau and I live on Kensington Sq/Glen Meadows.This letter is to address the requested use variance for 50 Pleasant St / 309 Vliet Street. Since the public is unable to attend this meeting, and participation in online meetings have been a challenge over the past few weeks. I would like my comments to be read by the Chairman of the Board so my comments become part of public record, and it is noted that I am in opposition of the requested use variance.The aforementioned property is located in an R- 2 zone. R2 designated zones permit for several dwelling types, including single and two family homes, as well as a few specially permitted uses. It does not, however, permit for Multi-Family Dwellings. I would like the to know how the applicant intends to demonstrate: 1) What financial evidence has the applicant brought to support they cannot recognize a reasonable return unless the use is granted. Given the applicants position in the Albany County Legislature this evidence should be transparent to avoid the appearance of impropriety 2) How the hardship faced by the applicant is unique to the property? 3) The essential character of the neighborhood is comprised of single family homes, with a spattering of two family homes. How will the applicant ensure a multi-unit family will not change the character of the neighborhood? 4) How is the applicant supporting their position the hardship was not self created? It should be noted the act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship. In order for the board to legally grant the requested variance the board must find that the applicant met all four elements required to permit a use variance. As a quasi-judicial board the Cohoes ZBA may not destroy the general scheme of a zoning law by granting any variance indiscriminately. The city has adopted zones, and any grant of a use variance will grant permission to the owner to do what the R2 designation prohibits. Finally, if it is the intent of the city to allow multi-family dwellings in an R2 zone the city should update zoning codes. The power of the board should not exercise the use variance and be in direct conflict with the overall zoning scheme for the community.Please tread lightly as granting this use variance could alter the intent of the zoning code and set a unintended precedent. Ms. Kimberly Binoy of 328 Vliet Boulevard: I request to be considered and asking the request for a multifamily apartment complex and parking lot be denied.\ Mr. Kevin Kilakowski of 181 Berkley Avenue: I'm certainly not in favor of this variant of an opposition other. You know, I'm a 42 year veteran in Berkley Avenue. These neighborhoods are built from homes and families and what is deemed as safe and acceptable by the residents and this isn't it? It's zoned as an R1 for a reason and bring a multi-family residents complex into this doesn't fit. to the climate the culture of our communities are the norms of our neighborhood and we are comprised mainly of single and single family residence and duplexes bring in a residents of complex of this magnitude doesn't make any sense one for the composition of the neighborhood but to for the safety of the area bringing Justin in to this area with the number of emergency vehicles that are in and out of pleasant have to begin with is a safety concern of That's of the utmost importance to me. My family it doesn't fit and if this is a issue of financing return on investment than we're going into this with the wrong frame of mind, and we really need to figure out what's in the best interest of the neighborhood. Thank you. Chairperson Briggs: Mr. Drake, would you like to respond to any of the comments made by the public? Mr. Drake: I mean it's kind of laughable to suggest that the connection would be anything other than I do business there and I just I just I'm shocked that people would say that I mean, it's silly. I mean, it'd be like saying that I don't know Governor Cuomo differente Donald Trump. I don't know. Anyway, it just shouldn't even be a part of a zoning meeting. I'm shocked and I feel somewhat. I don't even know what to say honestly but I've also was accused of not caring about the neighborhood which is funny because when when I went for the variance for the single family a lot and 49 Pleasant a couple people came in who our neighbors and and were expressed some concerns and we talked about it and they asked me, you know, I invited them to be a part of you know, what kind of design and you know, whatever and we went back and forth and they said that they might want to buy you know for their kids and I thought that's great. So I said, you know what? I'm not gonna do anything at all. I'll wait to hear from you guys. You know, I haven't heard from anybody and now everyone's mad at me for not building it so I don't really know. I don't understand why I'm being vilified for not building the single family. So again, I'm not sure how it plays into this but I just felt kind of personally attacked and just want to say hey, I'm actually just trying not to make a lot of waves, you know, and I told everybody not everybody there. I mean, I just don't understand what the suggestion and if we build a different building on the same site that those people suddenly be transient and irrespective of the neighborhood and I don't think that's reasonable. I just don't I mean I was listening to the one from the Simmons thing and I got it, you know, this seems to be like a very, you know hands off. We don't take care of anybody. We don't know anything. We don't take care of anything. You know, there's no parking people are hurting other people's property. I totally get that and I was really with the people on that. I was shocked that people kind of said the same thing here, but it was totally different situation. And you know, we're not looking at some of them even more than one person made reference to a significant apartment complex with all due respect. It's 4 units now we're suggesting six units. It just said they'll be taller and change it. I mean it's not going from this not going from a single family house. That's 30 Apartments. It's all ready for our permits there. We're talking about 6 apartment. And the only reason I've been accused of financial gain. The only reason that I'm on to make it four units and why someone asked me to address the finances and only if enhances the me gay what's to explain why we would try to do for Ian to set it to it's not a question of being everybody we're getting killed over there because he can't even rent the first floor. I don't have a hundred grand to just put into a building that you can't get paid back the base not going to give you $100,000. We could just not enough rent to pay for it. There's a lot of misinformation out there about property ownership and cost to maintain and improve YouTube. We want to do all these things you got to have money to do it and you know, so I lost a lot of money at the property patiently waiting to get in front of the City Zoning Board. It's been about a year. There's a it's nobody's fault. It's just taking a long time for all kinds of different reasons. I patiently waited and I'm not trying to you know, make things worse or anything. What I want is a beautiful building that similar to the apartment there or excuse me, please we appreciate your patience will so I'm looking at this and I'm saying no, but we designed the building in conjunction with the planning board through numerous, you know conversations and meetings. We wanted the building to look like similar single on to family houses. Designed to look like two houses set right next to each other and they're going to have a little front porches. If you look at the design that might have been shown earlier, you know, they look like other houses in the neighborhood the difference being this will be new, you know to be super clean super nice, you know, it's an improvement to the neighborhood and that was the idea. It's just like can't afford an improvement to the neighborhood that I can't pay for. So that's why I've asked for the very, you know, we could take you on the two families put up another one, but I can't afford to do that because the costs are so expensive. That's why we had to do the fan to a comparison. It's just I think some people have this notion that you know, the regular people just have you know, gobs and gobs of money, you know, we don't, you know, you have to make a project that works in the lender has to give you the money to do it. I mean, we don't have the money to just you know, take out of your vest your mattress or something. So but in any event also just for the record, I'm not from Watervliet. I'm from Latham about four miles away and I spent a lot of time and go home. I invest a lot of time and money and energy in Cohoes trying to improve it. So just you know, I'm not going to run down the list. We are taking cars off the street and somebody also pointed out that the corner is difficult to see the only thing that might be difficult in the corner would be trees and shrubs which we could remove we're actually moving the building away from the corner which would increase the visibility on the corner of the mm Pleasant not decrease the visibility. Most of the time there are encouraged parked on the corner of lie in the corner of pleasant. In fact, I can honestly say I've never seen a car park on the corner of pleasant because no one's over there. There's no reason to park there. There's no other houses. There's a reservoir across the street and the people on the bleep Street side and the other side of lie on the even side are not parking across the street on the Plaza and if they were they'd probably be inconvenient for them Lee Street is a major connector Corridor the traffic on this not going to be affected by whether I have three one bedrooms and a to buy them or to two bedrooms and two to voters. It doesn't make any difference. You know, so I don't think I don't think changing from a four-unit to a 6 will makes the neighborhood unsafe. I think it's going to improve the look of everything and that's really what the goal is. You know, this is not a it's not an issue of profit for me would be if I could take the building and have right now run it out and not do anything at all. But investment in the neighborhood cost money and that's what will help me. Stop losing money so that it's not about profit. It's about making a go of it. I've lost twelve thousand dollars in the last year. I don't want to keep moving called though in the in fact, I want to have money to reinvest in the property. I'm going to have to do the back building. Anyway, I want to because but where's it going to come from? I mean, it's a problem and now we're in this covid crisis and nobody's paying. So anyway as far as that. I think it was mid when indicated that the building would look horrible and I'd like to refute that. I think the building would look like every other newer building in the city of Cohoes in terms of residential. It's not gonna look like an apartment or an office and look like a house. Chairperson Briggs: This property has two principal buildings on it on then my fear we're going to open up a can of worms. If we grant a use variance on a lot that has two principal buildings zoning code section two, fifty-two 86 285 - 46 no single family or to family residential lot shall have erected upon it more than one principal building. No yard or other open spaces serviced about any building for the purpose of complying with the provisions of this chapter shall be considered to provide a your open space for any other principal building.So based on that alone and the mixed opinions between the applicant and the public. I think I want to make a motion to withhold the vote for this month and I want to make a few recommendations one. I think we should try and investigate whether we can split this partial up into two individual lots. I'm not sure if that's been investigated yet. I also I'm curious whether we investigated the cost of repairing the foundation on the building fronting believe street. I'm not sure if we could jack it up and do concrete structure repairs. So we could renovate the first floor of that apartment and have it be more feasible and minimize the alterations of the neighborhood. Any other comments and or agreement or disagreement from what I just said from the board? Mr. Greg Mollnow seconds the motion and it passes unanimously. Chairperson Briggs: I would like a little bit more breakdown on the cost to renovate the property foundation, and if there's any cost associated or barriers if you were to attempt to subdivide. Of the four points for the use various determination that the applicant to address further I'd like to dig into the uniqueness of the property in the district. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch X Greg Mollnow X Mary Shanks X CONSIDERATION OF A USE VARIANCE FOR 15 ST. AGNES HIGHWAY Chairperson Briggs: The last item is a consideration of a use variance of 15 St. Agnes Highway. The applicant is Syracuse Utilities Incorporated. The zoning districts is R-2 residential. The applicant is requesting a use variance from r-2 residential to L-I Industrial proposal is to purchase the property located at 15 St. Agnes Highway and use it in a way similar to its current use. The building is stabilized area will be used for truck equipment and materials. Storage and Crews will be dispatched from the property. Would the applicant like to describe the project? Mr. George Slingerland: First of all, I don't want to waste very much time, but I just want to commend you guys Joe and chairman and all the board members because there's a ton of municipalities in the Capital District and not many of them have figured out how to do this and for you guys to figure it out. You should be applauded. So thank you for that. We're in a unique position as an applicant because we're an applicant as a contract purchaser. So our application and this process we're doing as part of our due diligence as a buyer and from our standpoint the the real necessity for this process is because ownership is being transferred. nd in Our intention actually is to use the property exactly the same way that it's currently used. It's currently used commercially. There are some truck repair in some small machine work that's done on the property and the stabilize areas around the building is used for you know dispatching trucks on a daily basis. My clients operation is they are Utility contractor. They do a lot of utility work for National Grid other utility companies and you know from our standpoint. It's not a similar but it's the exact same use as what currently the property is being used for. So I'm happy to answer any questions and if our clients are are on the line to so if there are specific questions about operation, I will defer to them. Mr. Joseph Seman-Graves: Additional considerations. Since this is within 500 feet of a municipal boundary the Albany County Planning Board has to weigh in on any proposed changes and if pursuant to General Municipal law 239, so Albany County sent their comments and I'll read them quick. Notification of application should be sent to the town of colony including all required notices pursuant to gml 239 and before the zba can grant a use variance state law requires that the applicant must demonstrate unnecessary hardship mere inconvenience in the fact that the land is in question could be put to more profitable use or sufficient reasons for granting a variance. The applicants should include an explanation and that justifies the need for a variance with criteria set forth in state statute. We also have a comment that was sent in. William and Caitlin Keeler of 167 Western Avenue: dear members of the goes zoning board of appeals our family resides at 167 Western Avenue and Cohoes and we've owned our home for about seven years our property abuts 15 St. Agnes Highway having lived across the street at 166 Western Avenue for 30 years. I can say that only over the past several years has 15 St. Agnes Highway come to resemble a contractor's yard. Prior to that the property was well-maintained and uncluttered in recent years. However, it is taken on the appearance of a junkyard and has become an eyesore in otherwise nice residential neighborhood code enforcement officer Jon Shea occasionally worn the owners to remove abandoned vehicles and other collections of unsightly junk but the orders generally went unheard. We are particularly concerned that the adjacent property will look like the city's rezones will look what the adjacent property will look like if the city rezones the law from R2 to L1 or I want and we respectfully ask you to deny the variance even now a road mature arborvitaes might help hide the awful view. Thank you for taking time to review this letter. Mr. George Slingerland: Can I can I just speak to that? we realize that and and our contract and through the attorneys correspondence back and forth. We were very strong on the fact that prior to a potential closing that all of that garbage and debris in cars and everything else has to be removed Mr. Matt Scorzelli: I'm one of the owners and president of Syracuse utilities which is a utility construction Specialists, which is looking to move on to that property is a subsidiary of Syracuse utilities are currently over a and Watervliet not Crabapple Lane we lease over there. The operation is expanding and we're looking to we were looking have been looking around the area to find something that would work for us. Well, first establish Roots we've been in the area for five or six years as UCS, but are there's four tenants on the property right? Now. One of them is the owner we would be the only tenant that would be remaining on site would be the gentleman that runs the engine block main repair shop all of the all of the tenants that have any outdoor storage would be leaving the site as we would need to move into where they're at. And it is a very big concern of ours and we've already talked to several people as far as doing repairs on the building cleaning up the buildings. We would want to re-stabilize the yard. We've already gotten quotes to do the blacktop redo the blacktop. It's something that we liked. We like to be good neighbors and we like to present a nice picture out front. So we definitely would be making improvements there and cleaning up the whole site. Chariperson Briggs: Would someone like to walk us through the four points of receiving a use variance. Mr. George Slingerland: Sure, so from our perspective and again, this is it's a great question. It's a little weird a little unique as an applicant as a contract purchaser. So as far as a reasonable return it's easy. I mean it's easy for us to say that there is no reasonable return because what our operation is only works if this is granted so from our perspective, there is none if the property can't be if this isn't granted from the owners perspective since the property has been used so long as this use for it to conform you it would involve demolition of buildings and the construction of a single-family house which you know, we can certainly get numbers on that. But I think you could see quickly how that wouldn't mirror, you know, there is no return on that because unless you built a new structure on the property you could get no return if the variance wasn't granted. The second point of the test is that it doesn't it's unique this is unique because as you can see most of the surrounding area is residential and does conform so in a while there are a couple of kind of commercial spaces that are in the area for the most part on this side of the street everything is residential so that does make it unique and at the same time just hitting my previous point for number 3, it won't alter the essential character of the neighborhood for two reasons one it actually won't alter it at all because we're not looking to change the use we're just looking to get that use conformed in and 2 there are some critics. Commercial sites kind of sprinkled in nearby. So the character the neighborhood really won't be affected at all. And as far as our concern is from our standpoint, we are not creating this hardship. It's not self created because we're doing our due diligence to make sure that this is okay before taking ownership of the property. Chairperson Briggs: My concern is that we have no way of enforcing that you will be cleaning up the property. It's not a contract that we can hold you to we can't have the police roll up and do anything if it doesn't happen code enforcement can only go so far. I'm not sure Joe feel free to chime in with any creative ideas. Is there any way we can have this enforceable in a way that can affect the outcome of this this contract? Mr. George Slingerland: Sorry based on I think it's just the the Clutter that you referenced originally and I think you said that be part that's a deal that's you know part of the sale, but that has to be cleaned up before the purchase is finalizing if I'll jump in here. So as far as the the debris in the Clutter and the personal property that does have to be removed prior to closing. Chariperson Briggs: I would like to make a motion to table the reques until the applicant can provide additional information such as the contract details outlining that the property will be cleaned up, as well as a landscaping plan and any additional information that can be provided to show the improvements that will be made to the property. Mr. Mark Cotch seconds the motion and it passes unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch X Greg Mollnow X Mary Shanks X Chairperson Briggs: Motion to adjourn Mr. Greg Mollnow seconds. Meeting Adjourned at 8:45 PM