Zoning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD VIRTUALLY VIA THE ZOOM APPLICATION ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 2020 AT 6:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Michael Briggs, Chairperson Ms. Mary Shanks Mr. Greg Mollnow MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Joyce Baranski, Vice Chairperson Mr. Mark Cotch ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Seman-Graves, City Planner CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE April 29, 2020 MEETING Chairperson Briggs called the meeting to order at 6:33 pm and asked for the Board to review and comment on the April 29, 2020 meeting minutes. With no questions Chairperson Briggs motioned to approve the minutes. Greg Mollnow seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch Absent Greg Mollnow X Mary Shanks X CONSIDERATION OF AN AREA VARIANCE AT 14 Lighthall Avenue: Chairperson Briggs: Next on the agenda is a consideration of an area variance at 14 Lighthall Avenue. The applicant is proposing to install a 24-foot above-ground circular pool in the applicant’s backyard. The proposed pool sits seven feet from the Southern property line and 8 feet from the Northern property line. The applicants seeking a 3-foot variance on the southern property line and two foot on another property line. Ryan McPherson is the applicant property owner. According to chapter 25 of the Cohoes City Charter a swimming pool is an allowable use in an R1 district and the setback requirements are as follows front setback 50 feet, side setback and rear setback are 10 feet and this is again a consideration for an area variance. Is the applicant on the line with us tonight? Mr. Ryan McPherson: I’m here. Chairperson Briggs: Can you please discuss the images here and run us through the project. Mr. Ryan McPherson: So basically, the seven foot gap right there goes to my neighbor's fence post and his house isn’t anywhere near the fence so that's why I didn't really think it would be that big of a deal, their house is set way off to the side. Then there's a 10 foot gap which does run to my fence but I own all the way to Bayberry - which is a pretty decent amount of land and on the other side there's a vacant lot. So that’s about it. Chairperson Briggs: Ok, are there any public comments or questions from the board? If not I make a motion to approve the applicant’s request. Greg Mollnow seconds the motion and it passes unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch Absent Greg Mollnow X Mary Shanks X CONSIDERATION OF AN AREA VARIANCE AT 289 Central Avenue: Chairperson Briggs: Next on the agenda is the consideration for an area various at 289 Central Avenue. The applicant is proposing to install a small shed 12’ x 12’, 4’ from the southern property line and 2’ from the Eastern property line at the single-family home located at 289 Central Avenue. The applicant is James Everson and the property is located in the MFR multi- family residential zoning district. The City requires that an accessory structure with a total area of 120 square feet or more to be located no closer than 10 feet from a side or rear property line. Is the applicant on the line tonight? Mr. James Everson: Hello, I am here. Chairperson Briggs: Have you reached out to any of your neighbors regarding the project? Mr. James Everson: I contacted the only neighbor who may be impacted by this on the Southern exposure and his view of the shed would be blocked by a row of arborvitaes that I had planted over 20 years ago, so he had no objections. On the Eastern side is the abandoned Erie Canal, so there is no resident in the area who may have a problem. Chairperson Briggs: Thank you. Is there any public comment or questions from the board? Greg Mollnow: I don’t have any questions and I would like to make a motion to approve the request. Chairperson Briggs seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.  YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch Absent Greg Mollnow X Mary Shanks X CONSIDERATION OF A USE VARIANCE FOR 309 Vliet Boulevard/50 Pleasant Street: Chairperson Briggs: Next on the agenda is the consideration of a use variance at 309 Vliet Boulevard/50 Pleasant Street. Joseph Seman-Graves: I would like to point out that the applicant sent in pictures about 30 minutes ago that I was unable to get into the power point. So when we get to that point the applicant should describe the pictures. Chairperson Briggs: This use variance was tabled from last month's meeting. But for those of you who weren't on here, I'll run through it one more time. The applicant proposes a demolition of existing two-family home fronting Vliet Boulevard on the property of 309 Vliet Boulevard, which measures 100 feet by 120 feet, with the second family home on the property remaining. The applicant proposes to construct a new four-unit multi-family structure on the footprint of the demolished building. The proposed structure will be comprised of four 950 square foot units with 10 off-street parking spaces with an entrance fronting Pleasant Street. There are also screened trees and plantings facing Vliet Boulevard, which are partially intended to block the view of the neighbors. The owner/applicant is Philip Street Realty LLC and the property is located in the R-1 residential zoning District. As written in the Cohoes City Zoning code section 285 - 46 no single family or two family residential lots may have erected upon it more than one principal building. No yard, or other open space provided about any building for the purpose of complying with the provisions of this chapter shall be considered yard or open space for any other principal building. This application was tabled last month in order for the board to receive more information on the proposal. Is the applicant present? Mr. Todd Drake: Yes I am here. Chairperson Briggs: Ok, I will go ahead and read the materials that your engineer has presented us with. “As requested this office has reviewed the structural condition of the multifamily residence located at 309 Vliet Street in Cohoes. The structure is at two story wood framed multifamily residence. The structural review was limited to the general structural stability of the front structure on the parcel and not ancillary items such as windows, doors, mechanicals and finishes. Based upon our review we offer the following observations: • Significant settlement was observed at the southwest corner of the structure on both the first and second floor. • The first and second floors will need to be shored up and have the foundation replaced along the front and side of the structure. Given the overall condition of the structure the cost to perform the work outlined above exceeds 75% of the overall worth of the structure. However, cost to construct a similar structure ranges from $175 - $200 per square foot. Due to the location and configuration of the other structure on the parcel replacement will exceed the market value of a two-family home in this neighborhood.” Additionally the applicant has provided a detailed cost breakdown of what it would take to jack up the house and repair the foundation. Mr. Todd Drake: I had contractors come through in order to show what it would cost to repair the existing structure, which was at the request of the board – so those costs are outlined here. The estimates don’t really cover some of the more like the niceties if you will, but sort of just what we would need to do to get the building back up and running. I’m also sure that the second floor residents would want some improvements/upgrades that we have not included – but you know how these things go. One major concern is tht when you jack up the house, well once you move everything a lot of other things have to be redone - It’s not as simple as picking it up and placing it down. So you end up in a situation where you end up doing the whole thing. I just think it makes more sense in the neighborhood to have a nice new building that fits in with the surrounding properties. We'd like to make improvements to the other building as well and there's only so many dollars in the well, but at the same time we do that construction if we could be approved for that. We would love to remove the back part of the building and just build like a regular deck and make it make it nice for me to do things. Chairperson Briggs: Thank you Todd. I know we had a lot of public comment in the last month's meeting – Joe, have new comments come in? Joseph Seman-Graves: I will read the comments, but let’s first allow Mr. Drake to describe the pictures that I was not able to get into the presentation. Mr. Todd Drake: One of the suggestions that a couple folks at the last meeting had was that there was an old bush on the corner that obstructed your view when turning the corner, so I went ahead and removed that. We had talked about putting some screening there because I just thought someone might want it aesthetically but if this is a concern then we wouldn’t put the screen. I just wanted to clarify that with provide some comments. Joseph Seman-Graves: I will read the comments that have been sent it. Ms. Margaret Giller: I live at 31 Pleasant Street. I am writing in regard to the property at 50 Pleasant Street/309 Vliet Street. The proposed use variance request to rezone this R1 residential property to a multi-unit dwelling does not meet the conditions under the law. I continue to be opposed of this request as do the neighbors in the surrounding properties. The request under consideration sets a dangerous precedent if approved to the single family neighborhoods left in Cohoes. I ask that the board consider the affect this could have for the future. This property has not been maintained by the owner in the past 12 years, his argument that it is too expensive directly contradicts the legality of this request. The fact that it has been owned by the same landlord for the past 12 years and there has, self-admittedly, been a known water problem since he took ownership is not a legitimate argument to be awarded a use variance to completely change the character of the neighborhood. Of course the problem has gotten worse and more expensive, any home repair project would if left unattended. The intent of the residential district and descriptions to protect our rights as property owners is clearly described: (See zoning map attached "X" indicates the property address and how far away the zoned multifamily district is from this property). The intent of the Residential District-1 (R-1) is to encourage the continuation and improvement of existing single-family neighborhoods in the City of Cohoes; and to protect the health, safety and general welfare of those residing within the district. The purpose of the Multifamily Residential District (MFR) is to provide an area for mixed or multifamily residential development at a density consistent with the surrounding residential uses. In existing mixed-use areas of the MFR District, and subject to a special use permit, small commercial uses may also be appropriate, generally in existing buildings. Generally, these areas are located near commercial/service centers and provide a transition between residential and commercial/industrial areas. In addition, the request does not fall within an allowable use variance restrictions: The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided the lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence - By making this 2 family home into 4 units will realize considerable return to the landlord. The alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique and does not apply to the substantial portion the district or the neighborhood - the hardship of not being an affordable home improvement is not unique we all have to put money in to maintain our properties The requested use variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood- adding a 4 unit apartment building AND parking lot will alter the character of the neighborhood. The alleged hardship has not been self created - purchasing a building with a known water issue and not addressing the issue has created the condition of the foundation which has been stated as being beyond repair. Important note, as was explained in my previous comment this landlord is already using a small property lot for a business which is zoned R1 residential on Pleasant Street. He has claimed that this is a storage facility, which it is not. The landscaper is present all hours of the day working on cars and equipment (see photos, these were time stamped through the course of 1 week to show the lot is occupied throughout the day). There is no electricity run which requires the use of a very loud generator which at times has run for an entire day. While he is a nice guy, this does not change the fact that he is using the property to run a business from. My point... the request and approval of a use variance in this case will only allow for further misuse and cripple the homeowners in this neighbor to protect their property. I will close that with this decision also comes with it a price for the family currently occupying the apartment proposed for demolition. This is a very nice family who have contributed to our neighborhood over the past several years, The approval of this project would essentially make them homeless. Four one bedroom units are what is being proposed which would make it impossible for a family to inhabit. Please vote with your neighbors and your fellow community members to maintain single family homes in R1 residential neighborhoods and to maintain the character of Pleasant St. Chairperson Briggs: Are there any other public comments? Carlton Colville: I live at 44 Pleasant Street on the North End of the Street. I've been here for 55 years the property next to me that Margaret spoke of that is now a landscaping company. I agree that it is very noisy and there's a lot going on there. It's not conducive to a residential area and I would prefer that that variance be denied. Mr. Paul Gillard: I live at 31 Pleasant Street. I'd like to thank the board for give me the opportunity to stay quite close to this change in the property question the intent in the interest of time. We're only going to bring up three points. The zoning rules require an establishment of the unique circumstances the property owner saying that the water table which is causing these foundation issues is not unique to all have water problems Overstreet. We live above a reservoir in our house alone and we have we've done a lot of work. The Otto rules requires that you cannot approve variance per self-created hardship. The New York State court of appeals statute is well settled that a use variance cannot be granted where the unnecessary hardship complained of is being created by the applicant - this applies directly to this this property as the owner bought it as an R1 property. So, you know the New York State board of appeals in citing Clark versus Board of Appeals says nevertheless the owner purchase a lot and then applied for a variance. We could end this opinion of this point by saying that one thus knowingly acquires land for a prohibited use cannot thereafter have a variance on the ground of special hardship. That's exactly what's happening. The investor cannot use zoning variances as an investment strategy, which is what's happening right now. The requester bought all of the properties and he's already received an area variance on 49 which was against Otto rules because it was a pre-existing condition now asking for a use variance on the 309 property and he owns 50. So if you get to use variants on 309, what's to stop them from coming back to the board of appeals and asking for a use variance on that property as well? It's a horrible precedent. So these are only three of the multiple issues we could go through. The last one was brought up by a board member last week in support of the applicant and that was the question of a pre-existing argument. So the argument was basically made that there was already multi-use homes on that property. In fact, there's two multi-use homes on both of the problems involved as an investment strategy. You know, you cannot reward a zoning infraction - It's wrong, It's wrong to do that. Chairperson Briggs: Thank you sir, we will be moving on – thank you for your comments. If you have a similar comment to one that has already been made we ask that you agree with those comments and move on to the next member of the public. Mr. William Smith: This is a councilman Smith from the First Ward and I was listening to Mr. Gilliers comments and I want to know why you cut him off. Chairperson Briggs: I cut him off because he made the same or similar comments last month. His wife also has made the same comments and we just read those comments. I am sorry that I cut you off sir, but with respect to everyone’s time we are asking that you do not repeat the same arguments. Ms. Theresa Thibodeau: I live in Kensington Square. Mike you cut us all of, you tabled this a month enabling the applicant to have more time and come back to the table with new ideas and you’re going to try and cut me off. Again, you need to meet all of the Otto rules. The applicant did not come to the table with an answer to all four pieces so it should have been denied. We shouldn't even be to this point. His application should have been denied and then if you wanted to reapply and come to the table with meeting every single one of those rules then so be it here. We are done this month. You're shooting Paul down with valid concerns. You're overstepping. Continuous zoning board approvals over the past two years of repeatedly granting use variances is in direct opposition of all the intended variances as laid out by the City. Chairperson Briggs: The experience I gained on this board was actually under you, so I am not really a fan of the things that you've just been saying. I'm trying to have all the voices heard for everyone on this call. Mr. Gillier has stated his opinion for a long time. I am trying to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to be heard. I am going to ask other people if they have comments. Ms. Theresa Thibodeau: Well you will not cut me off. This board can only legally grant this if all four pieces are met. I haven’t heard any financial evidence and as Paul said this is not unique. It’s not self-created. If you think it is then you will be opening up the gates for all of the families down the street. You’re going to open this up even further when the when LePage has come to the table for the corner lot. I’m sure that you are going to open up a whole can of worms by putting anything in this district and we are not about that up here. The onus must be placed on Drake to come to the table and answer all four of those questions. I have not seen that happen and that’s all I have, Chairperson Briggs: Thank you. Any other comments. Mr. Adam Biggs: I live at 22 Berkeley. I just want to reiterate my agreement with everything that's been stated and for the record I've been contacted by 15 constituents with similar concerns, so I will not reiterate them all but they all were on the same lines of what's been said tonight. That's all. Mr. Richard LaPoint: I live at Pike Drive. I agree with the Gilliers statements wholeheartedly. Thank you. Ms. Kari: I live at Pleasant Street. We agree with everyone that has spoken. Thank you. Mr. Kolakowski: I live at 181 Berkley Avenue. I agree with what the Gilliers have said. Thank you. Mr. Brent Stevens: I am a contractor that has worked for Todd Drake in the past and I have had the opportunity to check out the project. Need to check out that project. I totally understand where a lot of the comments are coming. They bought houses. They're probably all paid for and the majority of the houses in that neighborhood look good. There are some that don't look good the water problem. The deterioration problem definitely has not started in the last ten years since Todd bought this house. It was a problem pre-existing and I personally have been involved in the last two years in raising a house down in Waterford putting a foundation under it. It was pretty close to $200,000 when we were done doing it and to put that kind of money into that house would definitely not make sense to anybody. Everybody's trying to beat up Todd Drake we’re just looking for a solution for that corner. The house is an eyesore and the repairs don't make sense, doesn’t make sense to put that kind of money into that house. So Todd's looking for a solution. Joseph Seman-Graves: Can I ask a question. Mr. Stevens, you just stayed on the record that it was a pre-existing condition? Mr. Brent Stevens: I believe it was. I do not think that saying Todd owned the house for 10 years and because he did nothing about it that's why the condition is there. That's absolutely not correct. I believe that water was going to be a problem regardless. If you look in that crawl space there is three feet of water in it. I mean that didn't just happen overnight. I believe that was pre- existing. I believe the foundation didn't start crumble in the last ten years. It's been crumbling. I personally live in Schenectady in a historic district. If I live next to an eyesore, I would want something that would make my property worth more money. And yes, if it was a four unit. I would say take the eye sore out and put a four-unit in. A four-unit is going to be better than looking out your window every day at a ridiculous rotting parcel. That's the beauty of democracy. We're all entitled to our opinions and we have this form to voice. Mr. William Smith: Bill Smith here again. I have no say what happens in the Fifth Ward. What if Mr. Drake new of this condition for the last 10 years and Mr. Stevens just said, there's three feet of water in there. Why hasn't it been taken care of? I am not a contractor, just asking. Mr. Todd Drake: There are sub pumps in there, but they burn up because there is so much water coming in. Something else has to be done. Chairperson Briggs: Mr. Gillier I want to apologize for cutting you off, I just want to give everyone the right to speak. I hope you do not take it personally. Mr. Gillier: I do take offense. None of the people in this area are asking for exceptions. We’re asking for you to stand up and keep things the way they are and honor our city code. My neighbors made a promise to Mrs. Coble’s husband that we would make sure I wouldn’t put an additional unit on my property because we are looking out for their retirement. I made that promise and I expect the board to fulfill it. I am passionate about this and you have to follow New York State law and the Otto rule which are their to protect homeowners. Please and thank you for letting me finish my comments. Chairperson Briggs: Mr. Drake, the floor is yours. Mr. Todd Drake: Thank you. Look, I understand that everyone fears change. When I bought and I didn't have a lot of experience and I bought it from the Valentino who all of you know. I thought it was the best thing in the world because I'm buying it from somebody who could give the best endorsement of selling a property there is and they lived their themselves and not only that but they stayed there for ten years after and helped me maintain it. So you know, honestly I had no idea that the reservoir problem was going to be that bad. For ten years after they helped me maintain it, so I didn’t know that the reservoir water problem was going to get they had no idea. There's been some confusion here and there are some experts from the public who have pointed out the things that are and I think it's important to make sure that these things are stated properly. There are two foundation issues. The water is not causing the foundation issue in the front building, what's caused that issue is that it was built either without a foundation or on a tipsy crappy foundation. There is no access there, so I couldn't have seen it. So there's no way I could have known of the condition. The foundation everybody wants to vilify me for trying to do the right thing here. That's upsetting and I wouldn't have a clue. The only reason I know is because there were seven layers of plywood under there. When I got the property back and it was vacated. I said we have to improve this because I want to make it nicer and that’s when I found the problem and that was 15 months ago. So when someone said I'm not trying to do something for the last 18 months, we've been trying to come up with a solution. We have met with the city. We have made application and we've been doing it in that time. Nobody's investing that make money. Okay. We’re doing the best that we can and it is unique property. There are not two separate properties here. There is one property here one cannot get an approval on 309 and suddenly build a second floor unit. It's not like that. It's one parcel with four apartments on it right now. I don't know where the misconception came from but that is not true. Also there was no use variance on the neighboring property, just an area variance. Now I didn’t buy three properties and try to redevelop all of them, just this one, and just because it needs it. Over the years this problem has gotten much worse, and that is causing different problems. When Brent Stevens said it has been a problem, it probably has. It probably started 30 years ago and nobody has ever noticed it until now. The assertion that we are not maintaining the property is not true. We have been doing nothing but putting money into this place and that’s why we are here, to improve the property. One of the requests from the board was to provide additional financial evidence and evidence of the possibility of splitting the plot into two separate parcels. It's my understanding that Mr. Graves had suggested that I could not do that because it would then create issues with the size of those lots. Joseph Seman-Graves: That is correct. Even if you were to subdivide the lots you would still require use variances on both lots as well as area variances for the setbacks. I do not recommend that course of action. Mr. Todd Drake: The other correction I wanted to make was that somebody stated that this is a bad thing for families, but it's not for one bedroom. The reason is only do one bedroom is because we're trying to keep the building as small as possible. I think we accomplished that when the architect designed the building to look like several single-family houses together – giving it a neighborhood feel. I didn’t buy the property to do something illegal like Mr. Gillier has stated. I am trying to come up with something that makes sense for everybody. At the end of the day the uniqueness part is here – it is unique. There is no space for a sub pump, no crawl space or basement. It's also unique in that nobody knew that years ago when they built they didn't put a foundation in that front. So, at the end of the day the issues and the foundation are a separate problem. Thank you. Joseph Seman-Graves: Mike, before we take a vote, I wanted to say a few words. Yeah, so just to speak to everyone for one second. Obviously. This is very contentious issue. I know a lot of members of the public think that the zoning boards is pushing this along in some fashion as they want to see it approve. The applicant does have some valid points and the public has many valid points as well. That's why this is a contentious issue and I just want to apologize for having everyone come back meeting after meeting, but that is a much better process than what's been happening where there's been one meeting. Maybe all that information is not there, and a vote is taken anyway. So I just want to say thank you to the board, you know for having the wherewithal to push it and get more information and I know that hasn't been the same opinion from everyone but I really appreciate that from the board. Now with respect to the property in general. Mr. Briggs did mention that there are two lot of two main principle building. You can absolutely buy a legal non-conforming lot and continue that use. What we are here to talk about today is once 50% or more about property value of that buildings value is put back into it that then requires a use variance. I don't think anyone saying that it was bought illegally, but we have to look at the intent of the zoning code here. The intent of the zoning code is to get rid of non-conforming uses or give the public or get the applicants an opportunity to make his case with the Otto rules that they're brought up many times over and I think that the applicant has made a strong case. I think the public has had their voice heard and I just wanted to be clear that we only have three members of the board here today. All three will have to vote the same way on all of these matters for it to get a determination. Thank you for your time. Chairperson Briggs: So one of the big things that I want to point out is assume that he's tried he has to prove that the uniqueness. I think this is a unique property in that it is two principal structures on one lot in our one District. So this is unique to my opinion, but then the alleged hardship has not been self-created. I don't know how to get more information on that out of Mr. Drake. It's kind of given his standpoint and has contracted and given his construction expertise on what is deteriorated their overtime. I don't really have any questions, just thinking through everything clearly. Greg Mollnow: All right, so just go for me personally going through these four requirements the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return provided lack of return to substantial. I would say depending on the duration of this view. You can see a return in this property long-term. So if you hold on to the property hold onto the asset for decades revenue will build up far more than what we be put in the front end. I think the alleged hardship lived in the property in question is unique. I would agree that it's Unique in the fact that there's two structures on one property, but it's on the purchaser of a property to do their due diligence when making that purchase personally, I'm not comfortable with making any decision on this lot because of the two lots it can open up a can of worms for any other property with a similar instance in the City. The requested use variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. I don't live in the neighborhood, so my opinion doesn't quite much matter, but we've heard the opinions of many of the public in the last two months and the alleged hardship has not been self-created. I would argue that he has himself created it because like I said, you have to do your due diligence as a purchaser you had mentioned today that you were in the early stages of your career when you purchase this and last month, it's actually noted and meeting minutes quoted by. Mr. Drake “ It was an early purchase of my days of looking at property and I didn't really understand how bad this would be in the long run”. Chairperson Briggs: That statement right there proves that is a self-created problem – in my opinion. Joe, if this is approved is there anything that would allow him to rebuild what is there and not a four-unit? Joseph Seman-Graves: Anything that would be rebuilt here would need Planning Board approval since it would be in a MFR zoning district. Chairperson Briggs: I read this earlier, but I will read it again. Section 285 - 46 no single family or to family residential lot shall have erected upon it more than one principal building. So it was grandfathered in, but once you make a change you are no longer grandfathered in. Mr. Todd Drake: I have two questions based on those statement and I am very confused. What you saying is 12 years ago I should have known that the condition would be deteriorate over time to the point where someday I would have to incur an enormous expense and tear the building down and build a new one. But I don't know that that's a reasonable thing for somebody to predict. Chairperson Briggs: If I were to own a home and buy a plot of land with two principal buildings on it I would have someone smarter than me hired to review the contract and the situation or a real estate agent who's more familiar with the situation and have to do and my due diligence investigating the city code. Mr. Todd Drake: That’s the point. I didn’t know this would become a long-term issue. You cannot see the foundation or lack thereof at all without ripping up seven layers of flooring. Now. I've never heard of a real estate transaction where the seller tells you to go ahead and do something like that. How would you know? Joseph Seman Graves: If I can comment. What Mike is trying to get at is that usually at the time of purchase the buying agent will ask for a zoning verification letter which will describe the terms around a non-conforming use. That will dictate what can happen with future repairs. Chairperson Briggs: Does anyone else have any comments? I will make a motion to put it to a vote. I don’t believe a use variance should be granted. Greg Mollnow seconds the vote and it passes unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch Absent Greg Mollnow X Mary Shanks X CONSIDERATION OF A USE VARIANCE FOR 15 ST. AGNES HIGWAY Chairperson Briggs: Next on the agenda is a use variance of 15 St. Agnes Highway. The applicant is proposing to purchase the property located at 15 St. Agnes Highway and continue to operate the facility as a contractor’s yard. The existing structures on the property will remain the same as we utilize it in a similar way to the current use. This property is zoned R-1 residential which does not allow for a contractor’s yard. The applicant is seeking a variance changing the property from an R1 to light industrial. The applicant is Syracuse Utilities. The applicant will need to show proof that they meet the four use variance requirements. The request was tabled last month in order to give the applicant the opportunity to give the board additional information. Last month we read this but we got a county referral consideration because it's within 500 feet of a municipal boundary the Albany County planning board provided their recommendations specifically saying that state law requires that the applicant must demonstrate unnecessary hardship mere inconvenience in the fact that the land in question could be put to a more profitable use or insufficient reasons for granting the variance. The applicants should include an explanation that justifies the need for a variance with the criteria set forth in the statute. Is the applicant present? Mr. George Slingerland: Hi guys, it’s George Slingerland, again the attorney for the applicant and we do have the applicants on the line as well to answer questions. I think last meeting we did a pretty good job at demonstrating the four legs of the test. You guys asked for a few additional pieces of information to be provided I think that we did adequately provide that and you guys have had a chance to review and we're ready to answer questions. Chairperson Briggs: So one of my request was to get the contract language for the purchase to confirm that the lot would be clean and clear when the purchase was made and here we have paragraph seven other terms the parties agree and acknowledge that all seller personal property and debris shall be removed from the structures and grounds upon transfer of possession. Thank you for that. And then here in this picture we have on the PowerPoint. You have a landscaping detail to try and shade the view of the lot from the adjacent Neighbors. Some of the work that would be done upon the purchase and cleaning up the corner along St. Agnes and Western Ave. All intensive work will be done with the guidance of the city and any necessary approvals. Chairperson Briggs: Thank you. Let’s move onto public comments. Mr. Scott Noel: As the current owner of the property known as 15 St. Agnes Highway I’d like to address some things that were discussed during the meeting on April 29 2020. I’d also like to bring some facts to your attention that were not brought up at the meeting but are critically important. I’d first like to give you some background on this property. Long before most of the current homes were in the neighborhood my grandparents ran an auto parts store here. That store served the City of Cohoes before anyone had ever heard of O’Reilly’s or AutoZone. Everyone knew where Noel’s was, and just about everyone who took care of their own car in Cohoes came here for their parts. When my Dad took over the auto parts store, he added a machine shop, then I started running things in the mid-eighties. The business and buildings associated with it grew over the years, with each addition receiving the approval of the City. My family loved being part of the business community in Cohoes, and I feel we’ve been good stewards of the property, but now it’s time to move on. None of my children are interested in being in business for themselves and I’m at an age where I have to consider the next stage of my life. I came to the conclusion that it was time to sell. I realize that a use variance requires a hardship. Clearly if this property was no longer allowed to be used commercially the hard work and efforts of three generations of my family would be substantially and irreparably damaged. By right the commercial use of this property is grandfathered in and the property could continue to operate in that respect, but any new purchaser looking to finance would have a challenge without the proper underlying zoning. As previously stated, there wasn’t much of anything here before us except farmland and the cemetery. I could choose to continue renting to the current tenants and lease out the space I currently use for my business, but I’m not comfortable with the idea of being an absentee landlord. We’ve had a few parties show interest in the property, all with commercial uses. We were pleased that the people who we ended up coming to an agreement with were also a successful family run business that would add to the employment and tax base in Cohoes. It hurt me to hear that one of my neighbors felt the property has been in decline recently, but I understand their point of view. The fact is that I let my tenants know of my plans some months back and they’ve been trying to transition out in preparation for the sale. I should have kept on them more about the accumulating debris but they’ve become friends over the years and I knew this move was going to be difficult for them. I believe we have things under control now and have made significant improvements in anticipation of closing the sale. There was a statement made that John Shea from code enforcement had been here multiple times and we ignored complaints. I know John Shea and it’s been a long time since he’s spoken to me about any issues with my property. I did receive a notification from code enforcement approximately two years ago regarding lawn debris and overgrown weeds in the ditch by the road. I cleaned it up and trimmed the weeds as asked. Most of what was there was grass clipping from people dumping in the ditch. I’m not aware of any other complaint filed against my property. I feel I’ve always had a good rapport with my neighbors, and I’m sorry that we got a little sloppy during this transition, but I’m confident that the new owners will take pride in this property as my family had for generations. I’m at my shop just about every day. If anyone has any further concerns or questions I’ll be happy to address them quickly. William and Kaitlyn Keeler: Hello, we live at 167 Western Avenue. We are writing this letter today as a follow up to the meeting held on April 29, 2020 regarding the preliminary use variance request of 15-19 St. Agnes Highway. After listening to the meeting, we have a few additional questions/concerns we would like the board to consider before making this permanent change to our beautiful residential neighborhood. We are very concerned that once this change is finalized, nothing that can be done if the buyers do not follow through on things they stated they would not do. We would like to know their plan for 15-19 St. Agnes Highway. Is the entire property, including the wooded area directly behind and to the side of our home, included in their purchase? Do they plan to keep the property as is? What do they plan on doing with the wooded area directly behind us and to the side of us? Do they have any intentions on using the parcel between our home at 167 Western Ave and 163 Western Ave? If so- for what? If they planned on using this parcel as an access road this could potentially cause drainage issues for both homes if this area is raised. We are already in a very clay/wet area with drainage issues as it is and we do not want anything that could potentially make it worse. Do they plan to blacktop the entire lot? If they were to expand the blacktop, this would affect our quality of life. Noisy trucks and machines would surround us creating a disturbance to our peace and creating more of an eye sore. This is also a loss of green space and would decrease our property value significantly. During the meeting, the potential buyers mentioned building berms and landscaping the area to improve our view. This may also cause drainage issues to our property. Certain plants, such as arborvitae, may block our view of the property but these plants could shade our yard/pool as they grow. We ask that in addition to their site plans, their grading plans and drainage plans be reviewed. The potential buyers mentioned that they currently own property on Crabapple Lane in Watervliet. We took the liberty of driving past their property and observed a very similar set up to the current occupants at 15-19 St. Agnes Highway. We have attached photos for your reference. As you can see, the property is not very well kept. Their current website states that they have crews available at all times for emergencies. Will trucks be coming and going from the property at all hours? If this is the case, we will potentially have to listen to loud trucks coming and going. We would be interested in seeing the environmental information that was to be provided to you by the potential buyers. The potential fumes from the trucks are unhealthy and unpleasant. How many trucks will be parked on the property at any given time? Where will they be parked? If they expand the blacktop, will trucks be parked all over the lot? Will diesel fuel be stored on the property? During the meeting, they mentioned that they work with National Grid, can they elaborate on this? What will this look like when we have a storm? Will trucks be coming and going at all hours? Will trucks be left idling on the property? We purchased this home 7 years ago with lifelong plans of living here, raising our family here, and growing old here. We have a young family and we have every intention on having our children grow up right here in Cohoes. Before purchasing our home, William lived at 166 Western Ave for 24 years. Over the past 30 years, the property at 15-19 St. Agnes Highway has expanded and become more of a disturbance over time. We would hate to have to potentially consider moving out of this beautiful neighborhood because of this permanent change. While you are considering this variance I ask you to ask yourselves; “would I want my children to grow up in a home that is surrounded by an industrial yard?” Thank you for your consideration. Pete and Anne Bariteau: It has come to our attention that 15 St. Agnes Highway want to use this site as a paring area for equipment. We feel that the noise and fumes from the equipment would be unpleasant and unhealthy for us to breathe. In addition to looking like a junk yard, it will bring down the value of our property. With that being said, we are against 15 St. Agnes Highway using the property as a storing and parking area for their equipment. Thank you, Ms. Mary Lynn Hamilton: I live at 164 Western Avenue. I joined this evening meeting so that I could understand what the requested variance was for upon hearing the information and I'm upon hearing the feedback of my fellow neighbors. I'd like to also express my husband's my concern about the requested variance to Industrial. We already have had changes in our area including the change with Stewarts and the and the car wash and you know, we've accepted the traffic that we have as a result of the car repaired , but this looks like it will give us undo traffic in our area undo noise. I happen to be an asthmatic. I personally would not be interested in having the additional truck traffic and diesel smell in my neighborhood. So we are against this. Mr. Scott Noel: Just like I said the background or you know, their property has been commercial for we've been used in a commercial excuse me commercial for approximately 80 years. I'm third generation there. It has evolved over the years, you know, and with the city's blessing we got a building permit to build the auto repair approximately 16 years. When I got that building permit, it was a one-day wait, they were more than happy that we were investing in the city as far as the hours of operation some of the tenants now in the back everyone in the back is leaving from and the future owners. Everyone is leaving in the back and they have a much better plan to keep things neat and I also spoke with Mr. Scorzelli and asked him just out of curiosity how many vehicles do you plan on putting in the back? He told me you know, 20 to 25 and it was going to be a neatly neat set up closer and close to the cemetery and they were just going to be storing vehicles back there and they're all going to be dispatched out of the front on the St. Agnes Highway from what I was told Currently right now there are 22 there. They're under three different tenants. So they're not in any organization by any means. We did have one tenant that was a contractor that not an industrial contract but a home contractor and also had a love for cars and we had him clean everything up as soon as we knew it was a problem for the neighbors. I got all over that and that has been completely cleared out. And that is the one spot that is very close to the Keelers. And you know, we did, you know, I feel bad that shouldn't have been like that. I went over and apologize to the Keelers and you know, I want to get it cleaned up as best I could as quickly as I could. Mr. George Slingerland: I think the concerns that were in the second email had a lot of information about the actual site in the applicants plan for the site. So Matt Scorzelli is online. I'm going to let him explain and answer those questions because there's no one who could do it better than he can. Mr. Matt Scorzelli: Thank you George. I think they were just really there's a lot of questions and concerns about actual use expanding asphalt driveway just questions about your intended use of the property right now. I'm okay. Thank you George. So with regards to the property itself again, we're looking to beautify it. We're looking to bring it up and I kind of disagree with some of the comments, you know, I think Scott's done a nice. Job of keeping his tenants in line for the most part, and our use would be very similar to what it is. Now. We would be storing equipment trailers and trucks in the backyard area. They would be dispatched out of the front. Well and with regards to the diesel fumes everything and the National Grid contract and coming and going at all hours of the night. We are a National Grid contractor. We are not on calls for their storm duty. We're a civil contractor, which means we're putting in conduit manholes working in their substations. So we're not on call for emergency work. So with regards to emergency services, that's something that is usually handled out of our other locations. We looked at this as a good fit because our use very closely matches. They use that the current owner Scott has with his tenants. Now the main building steel building, they're using it primarily for car and equipment repair right now. We would be using that to house some of our vehicles and then do some light repair there and then. The office space and the storage facility in the back would be used in a very similar way, we are not expanding blacktop or anything like that. We wouldn't have any reason to expand the blacktop regarding the tree line. We had no intention of expanding past that tree line or using the area between the houses over there. We realize that this sets somebody up so if they wanted to expand and put more houses in they left themselves a driveway in there a roadway in there, but we would have no intention of expanding out and making a another roadway in there. Additionally guys, one of the comments that was in there was about drainage in regrading and nobody's intention to regrade the property. There might be some areas that might be stabilized but there's nothing that is going to be done to the property that's going to change the drainage that currently exists there. And what they've done by looking at the property on Crabapple, but to me that's apples to oranges. We do not own that property. The applicant is a tenant in that property and has much less control over it. So while I appreciate it, I think there's no question in anybody here that if we're allowed this variance and to purchase the property the condition of the property is certainly going to be improved. One of the reasons that we're looking to move away from 76 Crabapple Lane is we've expanded there and one of the things that we've done is we've expanded that property for the current property owner. He's allowed us to do that. So we'd have more area for storing our trucks and trailers and in answer to the one question. Ms. Michalina Scorzelli: Hello, I think I think it's important and it will give the people who had some comments and peace of mind to know. It's also mostly Monday through Friday done it five it's not you know, maybe they have an emergency on the weekend and somebody might leave but for the most part they're Monday through Friday not coming and going all hours of the night. So, I think that's really important to know their hours of business, too. Mr. Mike Scorzelli: We dispatch anywhere from six to seven o'clock and it's usually pickup trucks we try to get the trucks out of there and there's not traffic all day long. We don't have any people coming in and out of there. It's the trucks leave and then they come back at 5 o'clock. Nobody's there through the night and we rarely have emergencies that take us out there in the weekends. As my brother said, we have no intention of working our way back into the woods, we kind of gave you the overshot of where we wanted to put the burns and the flowers and arborvitaes and then also clean up the tree line. And anything we do will have to go through if I'm not mistaken the planning board anyways. Greg Mollnow: Excuse me. Is there more parking indoors for your trucks in your equipment at you know, Crabapple versus the Saint Agnes Highway location? Mr. Mike Scorzelli: This is Mike's we're going to be honest, there's no parking inside at Crabapple and half of that property is also utilized by a foreign company. So you see some of their equipment and stuff there as well. My intention was to have the big trucks use the building and the pickups and trailers and equipment in the back, but as many of the big trucks as I can fit inside the building the big building that that was my intention. It should be a lot neater than what is over at Crabapple because we don't have control of that. And like I said, there's another company that has half of the property. Greg Mollnow: How many big trucks could you fit in the current structure? Mr. Mike Scorzelli: 10 trucks. William McCarthy: I received a few comments from a couple constituents and none of them really want a new company in there. I hope the Zoning Board will do the right thing up there. Thank you. Mr. George Slingerland: I think it is important to keep in mind that this business has been in use by the current owners’ family for over 80 years, and that predates the zoning. So I think it's important for people to understand that, you know, the last comment made by William was that constituents don't want this there. I think it's important to understand. It's not about new owner or not its use of the property and without a variance there really isn't another practical use of this property to be used as residential and there are two commercial buildings that are currently on it. So the only way to conform to it would be to raise buildings and put something residentially there which is just financially it's not practical so it wouldn't be an option. So if the use of the land isn't likely to change you are just going to have its just have and absent landlord who just has to continue to rent the property to not lose the grandfathering. I think that's an important point. Mr. Joel Colville: Like to get my name is Joel Colville on the realtor for Scott Noell and I want to reinforce what George Slingerland said because unequivocally this can continue as it is. It is grandfathered in there's businesses running out of there and they can continue to run it as it is right now the buyers looking to confirm the zoning to what it's actually been used as opposed to a grandfather use. You can continue in its current use in the town did approve that second building not all that long ago that was not ancient now that it was approved by the city for that second big building a commercial building. Chairperson Briggs: Mr. Noel, did you oppose any of the zoning board changes to the zoning code in 2006 and 2018? Mr. Scott Noel: No, I wasn’t even aware of them. Like I said, the City approve a building permit not too long ago and there was no issue. Greg Mollnow: Mr. Noel, have you ever looked into what it would financially look like to subdivide that lot and sell it for development of one family houses as compared to selling commercially. Mr. Scott Noel: We did at one point and from what I remember we had an issue with the amount of impervious ground which would cause us to only be able to build one house. Obviously, we aren’t going to tear down the building we have, that would make any sense. Chairperson Briggs: Any other comments from the board? Greg Mollnow: Mr. Scorzelli, can you give us a day to day run down of your operation? Mr, Mike Scorzelli: I have flag crews showing up around 6:00 am and they take their pickups and then they head to the job site. All of the cruisers are usually gone by 7:30 am. I have one shop guy that organizes things throughout the day. Then the crews head back in around 4:30 pm and everyone is usually gone by 5:00 pm. Greg Mollnow: Is there anything that can be done to help mitigate some of the noise being that we are in a residential district? Mr, Mike Scorzelli: That’s what the arborvitaes and the fencing on the site by the ditch are for, to help mitigate the noise. Chairperson Briggs: Personally, I have no problem with the business. I respect their desire to purchase some land and take ownership of it, we always want to see new businesses coming into Cohoes. I think we are currently stuck between a rock and a hard place because the current scenario this property is in is non-conforming use and granting this variance will set a precedent in an already questionable area of the City. Like we discussed, Stewart, the car wash, and the CVS are there and granting this variance could set a precedent that sets the city back in my opinion. Personally, I am very uncomfortable reading the Albany County Planning Board’s response and recommendations and I am not sure that the applicant has demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. Although my heart wants you to come and purchase this property, the current owner can continue to rent out the property thus continuing the legal non-conforming use. The purchase itself would need a use variance and set a precedent which is not good for the City – in my opinion. The applicants should include an expansion that justifies the need for a variance with the criteria set forth in the state statute. Mr. George Slingerland: To the point you just made, the applicant could lease the property and continue to use it in the same way – but it is the purchase that triggers the review. I think they are looking for assurances beyond the purchase so that a lender would feel comfortable, with for instance, if the building needed to be repaired (like the last applicant) and more than 50% was being put back into the building – they would need to come and get a use variance. So, this is an example of the applicant doing their due diligence ahead of a sale. Mr. Joel Colville: The hardship is on the owner. Mr. Knoll understands that the applicant is coming in as the contract vendee, the hardship is on the owner. He is the one that cannot do anything other than continue the use as a commercial property. Also, precedent is a funny thing because everything is a case-by-case basis where you take each aspect of the property and site into consideration. We are not asking for a change of use, we are just asking that the grandfathered in legal non-conforming use be changed to a legal use. The property has been used almost in the same manner for nearly 100 years. I am certain the aspects of this property are different than any other properties in which you are concerned about setting a precedent. Chairperson Briggs: I am still waiting for a response to Albany County, and let me restate their opinion. A mere inconvenience and the fact that the land in question could be put to a more profitable use are insufficient reasons for granting a variance applicants should include an explanation justifies the need for a variance of the criteria set in for a state statute. Other than saying that the current property is being used as a commercial use in and been grandfathered in there hasn't been anybody at spoken to this point. We have not received financial documentation saying that the land, if turned into single family housing would cost x amount of dollars which may be an improbable cost. I just need this point spoken to before making a decision on the use variance. Mr. Joel Colville: I can touch on this. I did sit on his owning board of appeals for about five years, so I’m not unfamiliar with this process. With regard to you know, when you're talking about profitability turning it into R1 means you're tearing down 15,000 square feet of building that is currently got a value according to the City. The financial hardship is that you are tearing the existing structures down to build single family housing. Greg Mollnow: The hardship seems to be on the owner, not the applicant. Mr. Joel Colville: I would say it is on the owner and that is why the applicant has come before you as the contract vendee. Greg Mollnow: To me the two points you will still need to prove are the financial hardship and character of the neighborhood. Mr. George Slingerland: I believed that we have answered the requests from the board last month. I just wish this could have been brought up as an issue at that point. I am happy to provide additional information, I just want to be sure that we are submitting everything you need as we will only have two weeks to provide you with the new information. Greg Mollnow: I do apologize, I reviewed the minutes from last month and you have provided the information that was requested. I do appreciate your flexibility with this. Mr. George Slingerland: It seems like the recommendation would be to table it with requiring more information. So financials is that what seems to be the point that would drill the concern home? Greg Mollnow: Yes, that would help me and then if you could reach out to any of the additional neighbors, I don't know and get them involved for the next meeting or get some buy-in from them that they are more approved of this and their neighborhood. Chairperson Briggs: I make a motion to table the matter. Gerg Mollnow seconds the motion and it passes unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch Absent Greg Mollnow X Mary Shanks X Joseph Seman-Graves: As I understand it we will wait for the applicant to provide additional information, and then if the recommendation from Albany County is holding the board up would the board like to get an updated ruling form Albany County Planning Board? Chairperson Briggs: I think that would make sense. CONSIDERATION OF A USE VARIANCE FOR 39 NORTH ERIE STREET Chairperson Briggs: Next on the agenda is 39 North Erie. The applicant would like to take the existing 1.5 acres of land and sub divided them into four lots, three of the Lots would front North Erie Street and be improved with two family duplexes, which would be tied into municipal sewer. The remaining lot would stay unimproved at this time. In order for an applicant to construct two family homes, he will need to get a use variance from an R-1 to an R-2 zoning district. In addition to the use variance the applicants also requesting a 3-foot front setback area variance on lot four as the proposed porch is only two feet from the property line. The zoning code requires a minimum five-foot setback. The applicant will also need an area variance for minimum lot size on each. The R-2 zoning district) if the use variance is granted) requires a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet for a two-family dwelling, each lot will require a variance of 1,489 sq ft, 1,490 sq ft and 1462 sq ft respectively. Is the applicant present? Mr. Fred Metzger: I guess we'll start with the experience first there with the change from R1 to R2. The particular case cost-wise obviously Anthony has done quite a bit of improvement within the city so on and so forth, but between purchase of the lot development and infrastructure for single family residents in that area you'd be looking at homes selling in the range arrange of a few two to three hundred thousand at the high end. Two-family homes will obviously have multiple apartments and there are multifamily units in the area like Lion Heart on the west and then there's a also there's a multi-unit on the east side. Also most of the units surrounding the property are two-family with the parcel on the north side being the single family exception. So with that particular exception everything else in the area is either already two-family or multifamily and again to develop it with single family units we are looking, you know an arranger, you know starting around 300 but feel that would be very difficult to sell a house of that cost and that particular area, you know as far as the hardship to the area again looking at it being surrounded by all the existing multifamily and two-family units we feel would fit nicely with the neighborhood and there's already I think there was there was too kind of rundown houses and two garages over there which were pretty much you know and condition that the big bad wolf could blow over that was looking to take them down. So, this would certainly add value to the neighborhood. As far as altering the character again, other than the one parcel joining us on the North being single family everything else around it is already two-family and or multifamily, so, you know, we're seeking the change from R1 to R2 again just for the use for the two-family duplexes. Joseph Seman-Graves: The applicant has made significant changes to the proposal that's currently being reviewed from the one which was presented in the March planning board meeting. Major changes include access being cut off from lot one to North Erie Street, a proposed subdivision of this property into for lots and three two-family homes being presented as compared to nine two-family homes and two ten-stall garages. The applicant has been working with neighboring property owners to develop a proposal that would complement the character of the neighborhood. The original proposal was met with heavy criticism while the one being presented today received no comments at the last planning board meeting. Chairperson Briggs: Thank you, are there any public comments? Ms. Kailyn Thorpe: I live at 43 North Erie. The applicant is looking to build a density here that you see in other parts of the city that also have better roads and sidewalks. It is a single lane road here where pedestrians are forced to walk in the street. There are no sidewalks and cars race around the corner which put pedestrians in danger. The applicant is seeking a use variance to have even less of a setback for the houses, even less space for pedestrians to walk and there will be more traffic on the street. He may have enough parking for the people living in the houses, but what about when they have guests, where will they park? Lastly, we are talking about the character of the neighborhood but what kind of guy just comes in and tears up the property, what’s there is a disgusting mess. It has been sitting there for years, kids go in there and it just isn’t safe. What kind of job site will this guy run if he can’t even maintain the property now? Ms. Helen Drouin: We don’t need three of these, two would be fine. There isn’t enough room and we have a little street. Also, what is going to happen with all of this water? Our basements are flooding and someone should look into that. Also, those abandoned houses have been sitting there for years, he needs to take care of that before doing anything up here. Mr. Fred Metzger: You know, I talked with Anthony and those houses will be coming down. They were only left up so the fire department could practice on them. To speak to the other comments, you know like we said, this project started out a lot bigger and after hearing the public out cry we shrunk the project down a lot to what you see before you today. Anthony spoke with several members of the community and changed his plans based on community feedback. And while the houses are close to the property line, they are still significantly set back from the road. The average distance from the edge of pavement on the three homes is 30’, so significantly set back. Obviously Anthony has intentions of improving the road as he will have to tap into the sewer which is under the road. Chairperson Briggs: Are there any other comments from the public or the board? Mr. Fred Metzger: Can I just add one more item sir? Regarding that 3-foot variance for the front obviously down in that particular Corner the shape of the parcels kind of unique the way it kind of wraps around the other ones that front up on manner so we couldn't with that particular unit going in there, we couldn't meet both the rear and the front setback. We had to have a three-foot variance on one or the other. So because of that we figured because they set back so far from the road that we would make the rear setback. Greg Mollnow: Do you have any financial data to back this request up? Mr. Fred Metzger: No, but I can certainly put something together. The hard part is going to be showing that a sale of a single family in that area at that price range will be possible. Greg Mollnow: These will be rentals, correct? Mr. Fred Metzger: yes sir. Chairperson Briggs: Thank you. Joe, regarding planning – I know they made some changes but have they been back in front of the board again? Joseph Seman-Graves: Yea, so the board approved the subdivision at the last meeting, but that was still tentative to a certain degree until we see if zoning approves the variances for lot sizes. Chairperson Briggs: Ok, how about the Traffic Commission? Joseph Seman-Graves: The Traffic Commission has not reviewed this project yet. Once a determination is made on the use and lot sizes then we will have a clear idea of the scope of the project. At that point we will be able to determine what boards need to review the project and obviously this still needs to be reviewed by the city engineer and building department. Chairperson Briggs: It looks like the use variance will be the sticking point on this one. Perhaps we need to prove these four conditions one the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return provided that the lack of return is substantial demonstrated by a competent Financial evidence; tw0, the hardship leading to the property in question is unique and does not reply does not apply to the substantial portion of the district or neighborhood; three, the requested variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and four, the alleged hardship is not self - created. Now in my opinion, I don't think all of these have been proven without a shadow of a doubt. I would like to make a motion to table this in order for the applicant to provide more financial evidence, and weather it is a feasible option to have two houses rather than three. Also, how is the hardship unique? I always think the character of the neighborhood point is somewhat subjective, but please offer more insight with that and on if the hardship was self-created. Ms. Laura Tarlow: Hello, I am here with my brother Anthony LePage. I am my brother’s business partner and I want to address the financials quickly and we can certainly provide more evidence based documentation if you need it. We did a similar subdivision on Vliet Street that we recently completed with three lots subdivided three single family homes upscale the cost to develop the land to run utilities to to develop cell - there was not much of a profit margin involved. We are happy to improve the neighborhood to take down, you know blight and to revitalize that section of a leap. However, as a business the return on investment was very smaller margins were very small so similar, you know, obviously the location of the city is different, but again good area quiet area. We understand the concerns of the neighbors, I grew up playing with mccolgan children on that street and certainly understand her concern but understanding that as a business to build and to develop single family dwellings on that land would not have any sort of positive fiscal impact. Anthony LePage has built a substantial number of single-family properties throughout the city of Cohoes. We'd be happy to provide pictures or evidence of those and the type of you know quality homes that we construct. So I just thought I would mention, you know, having been through this subdivision process and learning a lot and understanding the market and going through the process of a three lot subdivision similar in nature, we as a business are sort of headed into the direction of upscale two family homes. It's upscale rentals to add value to the neighborhood to clean up the neighborhood, you know, we are born and raised here. We have you know, traveled those roads walk those roads many times. There are challenges there, but if we could offer a way to revitalize and fix that area up, we would love to do that. Chairperson Briggs: I appreciate that and everything you have done in the City. Any financial documentation on similar projects that you could present us with would be helpful in us making a decision. So at this point I will make a motion to table until we receive the additional information. Greg Mollnow seconds the motion and it passes unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch Absent Greg Mollnow X Mary Shanks X CONSIDERATION OF A USE VARIANCE FOR 431 COLUMBIA STREET Chairperson Briggs: Last item on the agenda tonight is the consideration of a use variance at 431 Columbia Street. The applicant proposes a one-acre parcel being subdivided out of a 2.3 acre parcel for the construction of a 9,091 sq ft Dollar General store. It is located in an R-1 Residential district and the applicant is seeking a use variance change to a C-1 commercial district. Since the property is located within 500’ of a municipal boundary the Albany County Planning Board has provided their recommendations. They said that the state law requires that the applicant must demonstrate unnecessary hardship, mere inconvenience in the fact that the landing question cannot be put to a more profitable use are insufficient reasons for granting a variance. The applicants should include an explanation that justifies the need for a variance with the criteria set forth in the state statute. When referencing the surrounding uses the Albany County planning board said the following convenience stores and motor vehicle washes are not permitted in R1 zoning schedules. However, these uses existing are close to the project site. The City of Cohoes may want to re-evaluate Columbia Street' designation as R1 Zone. Is the applicant present to speak on the requested variance? Ms. Caryn Mlodzianowski: Hello, this is Caryn from Bohler Engineering. I represent Primax Properties LLC the applicant for this proposed use variance, and I do have Rob Neil from Primax properties on the meeting as well this evening. I'm here. Can you hear me? Yep, thank you. Thank you and as mentioned we are here for a proposed use variance for a 9100 plus or minus square foot Dollar General retail store at 431 Columbia Street. The zone of this Corridor is R1 residential which is why we are here this evening to begin the process for the use variance for this project. It seems in this corridor of the city that an existing precedent has been set. We are surrounded by other commercial uses as well as a large three-story apartment building. If you're not familiar with the project location, it is across from the car wash a Stewart's convenient shop as well as a CVS are in the neighborhood. There's also a business across the street. I believe operating as a landscape business that stores equipment outside and there's also a street that intersects Columbia Street directly across from the property Monroe Street that's there. So, this property has been a hardship to develop as residential uses are allowed here. So, it's hard to imagine that someone would put the effort and money into building a brand-new home here at this busy location when you're surrounded by these other uses a busy street as well. We think we bring a great project to the table. We're willing to discuss the aesthetics and the amenities and the Landscaping that could help improve this Corridor and help it fit right in with that. I will run through the four criteria if you feel that's appropriate at this time. Chairperson Briggs: Thank you. Would you mind running though the four use variance points? Ms. Caryn Mlodzianowski: The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return provided lack of return as substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence. As I mentioned the property has remained vacant for all these decades with no residential or allowed use being built on a state road surrounded by other commercial and high-intensity uses and across the intersection from another Street. This intersection could impact noise vehicle traffic headlight to headlight glare on to the property if it were a home or residential or allowed use here. It's unique in that it is surrounded almost entirely by commercial or larger uses here. There's other sections of the R-1 residential zone that are strictly residential so you don't see commercial businesses placed throughout them. This is truly the last vacant parcel and what's become a commercial corridor which leads into the next criteria that it will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. As I mentioned, it's surrounded by other commercial uses and that it has not been self-created other use variances have been granted around this residential property making it more and more difficult to want to build a brand new home here and have it have it have that reasonable return. So, we're excited to bring this project forward to the board this evening and the City. Chairperson Briggs: Thank you. Is there any public comment? Lisa and Christopher Sanford: We live on Maple Lane. I am emailing you to voice my household’s opposition to the rezoning of the property at 431 Columbia Street. Truthfully, I do not feel we would benefit from a Dollar General in that property. I feel it would be disruptive to the neighbors even more than the business from the car wash across the street. Furthermore, I do not want to see anything more done on that property that would further add to the standing water issue on the property that is damaging my yard, fence and my neighbor’s property. Until Mr. Gipp fixes the problem he created I think anything done with or on that property should not be pursued. I have lived in my present house for 66 years and do not feel we need to be re-zoned to commercial status Ms. Donna Smith: I live at 10 Maple Lane. We currently have a CVS, a Stewart's and a Car Wash which we hear running until 11pm. There is a new Dollar Tree in Cohoes and Dollar store a half mile up Columbia. We have a very quiet, safe neighborhood and really would like it to stay that way and keep our property values in place. The other issue is the applicant has ruined my property in my backyard. He built up his property, filled in a drainage area causing flooding from September to May/June. My fence was ruined due to water, trees are falling down due to water. It started 4 years ago and my neighbors and I have been trying to get the city to help us for four years. Everyone has told us it is wrong, he did not have a permit and we currently filed a claim against the city. We are waiting for the courts to file a small claims charge against the applicant. If he is allowed to sell our problem will only get worse and he won't care because he already has his sale. Mr. Michael Walsh: Hello my name is Michael Walsh and i live rite next to the property that Mr. Gipp is wanting to sell to Dollar General. I do not want a Commercial type store of any next to my property. I have lived hear my whole life and have watched the area develop form Stewarts to CVS to the car was across from my driveway. I find garbage from all 3 business in my yard, I have to many cars that drive down my driveway and turn around. I have to deal with trying to get out of my driveway in the morning which can take up to 5-10 minutes due to traffic. So, putting another store in this area will increase the traffic and its already too much. “Has anyone done a traffic study yet?”. The Dollar General will devalue my property as i will be the only residential home left in this area. I deal with cars with there stereos playing loud music from the car wash while people vacuum there car and people hanging out there all times. I feel that it would put more of that type of people in the Dollar General parking lot hanging out and littering and loitering rite next to my property. I have been very quite to the development in this area but this is not a store that I want in my front yard on top of one of the main things you see when you first enter Cohoes from Latham” I think it will be trashy”. I do not know if you have ever been in one of these stores but I went into the one a mile up the street in Latham and they have shopping carts with 8 foot pipes on them so no one can run out of the store and steal the whole cart. These stores bring trashy people to them and lower income customers witch they will end up in my front yard and leave there trash there and give this clean area a shitty curb appearance. I have put over one hundred thousand dollars into my home in the last few years to improve the appearance and efficacy of it and now it will be worthless next to a Dollar General. I take pride in my city that i have lived in my whole life and they home I have built in this city. I can go on and on and on. I am against this store in this area. Please don’t let this store build here! Ms. Lisa Sanford: I would like to thank Mr. McCarthy for his comments. He and the mayor are well aware of the issues. We're having here and Mr. Gipp is not responsible for his own home, that is on that property and it’s falling apart. He's wanting to sell all of that land maybe for other residential area. Putting a Dollar General there will make it worse. He's regraded the property and done it without permits. We have this big mess here. And who knows when they come in and start building a Dollar General what other kind of issues are going to happen on that land that are going to affect our properties. It's a big mistake to go ahead with it. And certainly hope we can do something about Mr. Gipps problem because if he tries to sell their property and we can't get into a small claims court because the court being closed at the present time. I think we're going to be up the creek and the city has told us we've got to come up with money and I really don't think its fair when he's damaged that property to the extent that he has that it's caused all these problems and fortunately we can take that stuff into consideration, but it's weird. Ms, Donna Smith: I actually agree with my neighbors. I have the direct line of Mr. Gipp who has raised his property. I also do not want a Dollar General up here. I have lived here and everybody going to talk to us not to tell you they have lived here almost their entire lives and it is a very quiet safe neighborhood and we would really like you to keep that keep it that way. We also do not think Mr. Gipp should be allowed to sell that property until he fixes the problem. He has caused at least six houses on Maple Lane and the city tells us. Oh, this is terrible. You shouldn't live like this but we have to pay for it. Well, he gets to sell his property and make what 300,000 to 400,000 dollars at that point. I do not think that is fair to the owners on Maple Lane that he can get make money while he's ruining our property. Thank you. Thank you for your kindness. Chairperson Briggs: And again, we are here to review a use variance. Unfortunately, we can't help or harm the situation with the water, but we will take that into consideration as to the best of our abilities. Mr. Mike Walsh: I'm little bit insulted by what they said about Dollar General consideration to the area that you can't build a house and anything like that in this area. So I do believe Mr. Gipp will sell his five and a half acres to build 44 townhouses. So I don't think there is a grievance for the front of the property and for the woman representing the Dollar General to say, you know, it's there's nothing else they could go there you can put residential houses right here and also my qualms would be with the variance the lighting on the building's the garbage truck since I'm right next to the property I deal with it all of the time. So for a variance for that, I'm totally against it because even last night I heard the alarm going off at 3:00 in the morning from the old age home on the east side of my property for about 45 minutes until something happened and then woke them up. Five o'clock the garbage trucks at Stewarts and CVS, we don’t need anything else. Mr. Sam Slone: I live at six Maple Lane. I'm against this for all the reasons stipulated there. There's going to be increased traffic a higher water table and you know the market saturation of Dollar General. I don't think that a Dollar General would serve the community. We're in a virtual food desert and a Dollar General doesn't do anything to alleviate that I don't see where it brings any positive aspects to the neighborhood other than increased traffic and more light pollution. Ms. Caryn Mlodzianowski: Thank you everyone for your comments and feedback this evening just to address the general and resounding main issues and concerns. As far as the use of the property it can certainly be sold or used for a residential home. The point was that over the decades and years it hasn't been used for that. It may certainly be used as that but it just it just hasn't been done and it may be due to the traffic and they noise in the other items that have been mentioned. As far as what we're here for this evening. It is just review of this proposed use and use variance. If and when we do to obtain the needed variance, we will come back to the city and do a full site plan review with the planning board with full details on items such as access light Landscaping traffic and all those items that will be reviewed. So, for this one acre that we are proposing to develop we will improve all of those conditions as were required to do, such as drainage. I guess I would just maybe a Dollar General is a very much essential use and they do sell groceries and have been especially during this this last period of time have been very useful and essential and provided good services. They would bring a lot of positives to do this area. Mr. Rob Neil: I'm the developer Primax Properties. We are under contract with Mr. Gipp and Dollar General would be the tenant. Chairperson Briggs: Thank you. By switching zoning from residential to commercial would go against the County's referral. Again, I know they made a point that we should review the whole area as his own project because so many commercials uses are already being used on the area. I think this is just a deeper conversation that we need to have. I just struggle with you saying you can’t realize a reasonable return. Ms. Caryn Mlodzianowski: How would you propose we show that? Chairperson Briggs: I just don’t see how you can prove it, this would be something that the property owner may be able to show. Ms. Caryn Mlodzianowski: We are authorized to represent the property owner and act as his agent. Chairperson Briggs: Unfortunately, I don't know if the current applicant could provide that or demonstrate that it will return for the owner and I had this is kind of a I could be off base here. But that's just how I'm reading that. Yeah, I mean from my personal opinion it just the Dollar General just seems like a low-hanging fruit. That is most definitely a reasonable return on the investment there a stone's throw away from this site currently and they're thoroughfare compared to where it is right now would be almost no difference. The same bus route goes up Columbia Street and Columbia Street Extension the same traffic could go down Columbia Street from Columbia Street Extension. It's within a mile and a half radius from one another. So the people that would be shopping here are currently still shopping at its location. It's in right now in my opinion. So that's why I that's why I would like the applicant to apply separately. So it's not coming from a representative representing Dollar General specifically. But since I don't think Mr. Gipp is on the line. Can we just table this application as is for now? Mr. Greg Mollnow: Yeah, I think it's yeah, yes, I think so. If especially since he's granted you guys that power I just I think it would be a stronger argument financially if it wears him presenting his case as so his hardship and his lack of residual interest in my opinion. Chairperson Briggs: : Make sure that the applicant can provide information necessary to help you make a decision next month. But if we can get some Financial backing and his involvement and also if we could look as a board at the current zoning variances that are in that area, you know the CVS and Stuart's this see how this map has changed and it's not just an r1 residential as it's currently depicted if we could get those two together for the next time we meet to review this I make a motion to table this until we can get those two things more settled. Greg Mollnow seconds that motion and it passes unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Michael Briggs X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch Absent Greg Mollnow X Mary Shanks X Chairperson Briggs motions to end the meeting. Greg Mollnow seconds and it passes unanimously. Meeting Adjourned at 10:06 PM