Zoning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD VIRTUALLY VIA THE ZOOM APPLICATION ON WEDNESDAY, June 24, 2020 AT 6:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Greg Mollnow, Chairperson Ms. Mary Shanks Ms. Carolyn Dion, Alternate Member MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Joyce Baranski, Vice Chairperson Mr. Mark Cotch Mr. Anthony Kusaywa ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Seman-Graves, City Planner CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 27, 2020 MEETING Chairperson Mollnow called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm and asked for the Board to review and comment on the May 27, 2020 meeting minutes. With no questions Chairperson Mollnow motioned to approve the minutes. Mary Shanks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch Absent Mary Shanks X Anthony Kusaywa Absent Carolyn Dion X CONSIDERATION OF AREA VARIANCES AT 21 Gansevoort Avenue: Chairperson Mollnow: Next on the agenda this month is the application for an area variance at 21 Gansevoort Avenue for a pool measuring 20’x32’, a gazebo measuring 17’x22’, and a storage shed measuring 7’x9’. The applicant will be seeking a 5-foot area variance for the setbacks along the northern and eastern property lines. Chapter 25 of the City Charter states that a swimming pool is an allowable use in the R-2 residential zoning district. The setback requirements are as follows: a front setback of 50', a side setback of 10' and a back setback of 10'. Section 285-47 of the zoning code states that an accessory building with a total area of a hundred square feet or less and a maximum height of 10 feet would be located no closer than 10' to a side or rear lot line. The appeal under consideration is for an area variance. For an area variance to be legally granted the applicant will try to prove the following points, and unlike a use variance not all of these points need to be met for a variance to be granted. The benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriments to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such a grant; 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; Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; Whether the requested area variance is substantial; Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environment or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Is the applicant on the line today? Mr. Kevin Flatley: Yes, hello. Chairperson Mollnow: Sir, can you give us a brief overview of the project? Mr. Kevin Flatley: We are looking to put up a shed, pool, and gazebo to north eastern side of the property while leaving the other side yard as open green space. Chairperson Mollnow: Thank you, are there any public comments? Mr. Stanley Darwak: My name is Stanley Darwak and I reside at 12 Continental Ave, Cohoes with my mother Patricia. We are just up the street from the new residence at 21 Gansevoort Ave. We both fully support each of the variances requested by the applicant. The Flatley’s have been outstanding members of the Cohoes community for a long time. Mr. Richard Emory: I, Richard Emory reside at 17/19 Gansevoort Ave. have no issue with the 5 foot variance for 21 Gansevoort Ave. Ms. Jeanne Mcomber: I live at 6 Continental Avenue. I received a letter today in regards to 21 Gansevoort putting up a pool. I support it and say yes. Joseph Seman-Graves: There was also a comment that was called-in before the meeting from the adjacent property owner of the radio station. He was not opposed to the variance, but did have some comments regarding the property line. The Flatley’s are aware of this, but the property line and existing fence do not match up perfectly - the fence is about 4’ off of the property line. Chairperson Mollnow: Thank you, any other comments? Mr. Bill Smith: Hello yes, I live at 3 Jay Street. Has work already begun at the property? Joseph Seman-Graves: Work has begun on the house which has building permits and has been approved. To clarify, work has not begun on any of the items that are in front of the board today. Chairperson Mollnow: Thank you. Does the board have any questions? If not, my question to the applicant. Are the properties on either side of you have concerns about the variance? Mr. Kevin Flatley: The gentleman with the house to the right of my property sent in a letter of support and the radio station to my left and behind me called in and approved the variance. Chairperson Mollnow: I would like to make a motion to approve the variances. Mary Shanks seconds the motion and it passes unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch Absent Mary Shanks X Anthony Kusaywa Absent Carolyn Dion X CONSIDERATION OF AN AREA VARIANCE AT 220 Remsen Street: Chairperson Mollnow: Next on the agenda is a consideration for an area variance at 220 Remsen Street. The applicant has constructed a six-foot fence with 16-inch piece of decorative lattice work enclosing the applicants back patio. The applicant is seeking a five foot four inch setback variance for the reasons stated. Fences that are 6 feet or less in height are exempt from the setback requirement and taller fences require site plan approval by the planning board - to be clear this is the zoning board. In accordance with article 14, in no case shall the height of a fence exceed its set back from the adjacent lot. In this case the fence is set back two feet from the property line, so the applicant seeks a variance of 5' 4". Is Mr. Russel on the phone, if so can you please explain the project? Mr. Don Russel: This is a patio behind Anthony's Italian restaurant on Remsen Street. As you stated the fence that we put up is six foot in accordance with the code after at the fact we put up sixteen inches of decorative or architectural lattice to block the view of the property in the rear. Chairperson Mollnow: Thank you. Joe, since this is a complicated issue would you be able to explain to everyone what is being requested right now. Joseph Seman-Graves: Sure. So, there is a few things going on here. Originally the fence was 6’ in height. At that point there was an issue brought to my attention regarding a pergola on the site as well as some concrete that was being poured. I now have a very lengthy description of what constitutes a pergola and how to view it in the context of our zoning code, which I can get into if need be, but it is slightly outside of the scope of what the board is looking at today. Basically, a pergola is in a gray area in the code and can only be viewed as a landscaping element. Landscaping elements do not adhere to setback requirements and are only reviewed by the Planning Board within the context of a landscaping plan – which is only reviewed if a site plan is conducted. Originally nothing at the site required a site plan review, but when the fence height was increased a Planning Board review was triggered. So, that is now going to be reviewed. I did recommend to the Common Council that if this language is too ambiguous then they should make an amendment to the zoning code. With that being said, the height of the fence language is tricky to interpret as well. If over 6’, the height cannot exceed its distance from the property line. In this case the height of the fence is 16” over the 6’ mark, but the way the law is worded doesn’t clearly indicate if the fence now needs to be 16” or 7’4” off of the property line. So just to be safe I have asked the applicant to apply for a 5’4” variance since the fence sits 2’ off of the property line. After speaking with the last planner in my position, it seems like they interpreted this as meaning the height over 6’ rather than the total height if over 6’. Chairperson Mollnow: Thank you. Let’s move on to public comments. Mr. and Mrs. John and Barbara McDonald: We own property at 222 Remsen Street and we are fully supportive of the variance request as it is a positive addition to the business community. Mr. Mark Colozza: I own property at 225 Remsen Street. Please be advised that I have no objections and fully support this project. Mr. Jefferey Cutler: I'm writing to you in regards to the variance that the owner of 220 Remsen Street is requesting for their fence. I own (and live at) 229 Remsen Street and can see the fence from my house. I find the fence to be attractive and in keeping with the quality and workmanship of the neighborhood. Anthony's has been a great addition to the neighborhood. I have no objections to them receiving the variance. Mr. Timothy Thibodeau: I have a copy of the application for the permit to repair or replace a fence at 220 Remsen St. Mr. Russell implied that the fence he was replacing or repairing was to an existing fence that was legally in compliance with the code. Turns out, that is untrue. Furthermore, in the permit issued May 7, there was no mention of building a pergola either and the historic preservation board should have had a look at this for approval before a use variance is granted in the historic area on Remsen St. The concrete slab was poured prior to issuance of the permit as well and can be proven with photo's posted on social media by the owners of Anthony's as well. The whole project was built without the city having a full knowledge of what truly was being built and now that it is complete, we want to reward Mr. Russell with a use variance? Do that and expect every resident and business to built first in the future and beg for a use variance after the fact. Mr Russell should be made to remove this no differently than other who build without following the proper procedures and city codes. Mr. Edward Conlan: As a citizen and taxpayer in good standing, I am incredulous that Mr. Russell ( Anthony’s Owner) is putting in for a variance re his patio fence in an “after the fact” fashion.....IMHO, ignorance and / or cavalier attitudes ( ESPECIALLY BY A CITY COUNCILMAN) toward municipal regulations is beyond the pale.....It is my FURTHER understanding that Russell obtained his permit for pouring the slab underneath his supposed “ fence repair” was obtained three days AFTER he had the damned slab poured....I urge your office to deny this variance request and order this pergola and fence to be taken down until Mr. Russell can learn that being a public official does not mean he can circumvent normal rules .... Thanks for your consideration. Mr. Lee Furbeck of 243 Remsen Street: This is to recommend approval for the variance for the fence at 220 Remsen Street. I live across the street and I can see it from my home, I think it's an attractive addition to the neighborhood. I also think that it should be allowed considering what's on the other side of the fence. To the west: TNT. To the south: Who knows? But probably a lot of disruptive construction in the future. Thanks for your consideration. Mr. Timothy Thibodeau: I live at 113 Massachusetts Avenue. Okay, and look at I do agree that the pergola the patio and everything is attractive but we're a city of code and laws. First, the attractive side of the fence outwards the north and west side does not face outward. Maybe you’re not going to address that, but it should have been put in his permit in the first place. Secondly, even though the pergola is nice and attractive and the language is ambiguous, you still need to have a building permit. Lastly, you need to have approval from the historic preservation board. I mean back in April they were whining because Mr. Russell didn’t go before them before putting up a new sign at spindles and here this thing is visible from Remsen Street. I think it looks nice, but the point is that you need approvals before you build. Joseph Seman-Graves: The Historic Board will be reviewing the project. Pergolas themselves are not something either New York State or the City of Cohoes asks to be included in a building permit, since it's a landscape feature. That's where it's hard to enforce the aspect of the code that you are speaking of, because it's not there. So I have recommended to the Council that if this is an issue to correct the code and make an amendment to it, but as far as this goes the applicant did after the fact add the pergola to the building permit. However, it is still not stated anywhere that it has to be added. Now with respect to that, the code enforcement department is going to be looking at how that was constructed, if they haven't already, and make recommendations either to alter it or keep it as is depending on the structural Integrity. Regarding the historic architectural board, they've already voiced their concerns to me privately and I'm sure that they will be speaking with the applicant when it gets to that Board review in July about this. So I appreciate your comment on and for astutely seeing that those comments were made a few months ago. Mr. Bill Smith: Some of you may know if not now this this was built without a proper guidance of code or the planning or zoning and everybody else that that is involved. I think if this variance is passed tonight for Mr. Russell as a councilman, it's going to set a precedent. For anybody else to do what they want and been building and I don't think it's a good present descent. Mr. Russell try to get by the rules as an individual maybe not as a counseling but as an individual a building this and and he was caught and and I was strongly suggested to this board then disappearing who's not passed because again, you're setting a precedent that we don't need zoning. We don't need the board's. We don't need anybody to do anything in the City of Cohoes. We're just going to do what we want to do as public officials and who gives a damn and that's wrong, you know, there can't be two sets of rules in the city one for folks that want to do by right and one for folks at or above it and get away with it, and it's got to stop. And it's got to stop now with you guys. So I plead with you not to grant a variance and a sign to the others that this is not going to happen in our city. There's so much turmoil going on right now in our city that maybe you guys will know about but I do, but is will set a precedent and do the right thing and not pass his variance. Iam not saying that anyone is giving preferential treatment and I am not saying the board is being biased. I just think as a public official we need to be above the law. This is a public official and we need to abide by the rules. And this was this was skated by the code. This was skated by zoning and everybody else that Mr. Russell went on, you know, and he talked about the one at spindles. Well, that can't be seen so nobody cared. This can be seen and Barbara McDonald, I love her and everything, but she doesn't live on Remsen Street. The fact is that this was put up illegally and the facts that you were provided by Mr. Thibodeau and everybody else says this is wrong. And I'm just saying that this variance should not be passed. That's all because tomorrow I'm going to go build an addition and I'm not going to go to code. Mr. Timothy Thibodeau: In August 2019 Mr. Russell had building permit for a host of renovations and alterations to 220 Remsen Street. What happened? Is that permit expired in January. Now he had the option in January to extend that permit and pay the additional fee for extending that permit which would have brought him out really till August of this year to do. Whatever. He wanted to do it, but that's not what he did here and the permit expired. They he already dug up everything and poured 1/2 of the concrete slab without a permit. Okay, then when there was public outcry what's going on here? He did put in for permit for strictly a fence and nothing else. Okay. Now, I know you're only looking for a variance for the fence but when he put in that application for that fence, the questions should have been asked how high is that fence and how far setback is that fence? Only one side is facing Remsen Street. The unattractive side is facing north and west. I think it looks nice anyway, but that's not what our code says. Our code says the attractive side must be facing out. So he's going to end up needing to get that reviewed. There may not be anything to give me to pergola but what do need a building permit to do that? And there is no building permit so that got put up without a permit whatsoever. Which means anybody in the city can simply put up a Pergola if they want anywhere on their property and because it's ambiguous code can't do a damn thing about it. Nobody can do it thing about it. It's architecture and this is where we end up going. So we just need to be consistent with everybody in this city. Not just Mr. Russell. Separately and the whole point is people are saying do we reward someone for doing all of that after the fact and then getting a permit after the fact and looking for a use variance after the fact and that's what's upsetting here, Joe. Okay, just to be open and honest and let the city know what your intentions are and get the proper approvals. Thank you. Mr. Edward Conlan: I'll be very brief. I really just want to say I have nothing personally against Mr. Russell and his restaurant. I don’t have a problem with what he was trying to do. I do have a problem with him being a councilman in this City and I would think that a Councilman in the City would hole themselves to a higher standard, but at least the same standard as the residents – especially those of us who own buildings and pay property tax on time. So, I do not really have a dog in this fight. I don't live near there, I live up on the hill. However, what I would beseech to you guys is that you look at the pattern here and the pattern here apparently is somebody who's in office as a councilman skirting around the rules and doing something that really ought not be done. He should have known better. So, if he comes to you and says, well, I know I already did it. But can you give me a free pass, you know for having done this? I don't think that's right. I don't think that's right for any resident let alone a council member. So that's really all I had to say. I appreciate it. Chairperson Mollnow: Okay, are there any additional public comments? If somebody wants to repeat a comment already made if they could just voice that they agree with the comment. We just want to keep this moving along. We understand everybody has an opinion want to hear everybody, but if you do agree with the comments that have been said please just state that so we can keep moving on public comments. Mr. Timothy Thibodeau: Greg just really quick. A lot of the concern is the procedure. I think it all just starts with the initial application permit process. I think where the breakdown is here is that we're not asking enough questions on the application process itself, and I didn't look that the application. I have a copy of it through Freedom of Information. It simply says fence repairing and or replacing. Okay, and if I'm if I'm the city planner, I'm going to sit there and say well, yeah, it's just replacing a repairing an existing fence and existing place. But then this happens, and it wouldn’t be if we asked how tall the fence is or where is it on your property. We need to improve upon the initial building permit application process – it really boils down to better planning. You can look at the first case you looked at very quick are about putting in a pool in the shed. They should have had that on their site plan when they're doing all of this. I don't have any issue with them doing that at all. In this case the applicant said on Facebook that they were putting up an 8’ tall fence. And they also posted that they poured the concrete slab on May 2 while the permit process was pending. So, they already had poured concrete in order to put this fence post on top of rebar. So, they're only sitting on a piece of rebar. This fence is not anchored into that concrete. Mr. Donald Russell: The City was informed about the intention of a patio fence and all that. They had to be informed about it because we applied for a liquor licenses state of New York and the city was given 30-day notice about our liquor license and that was all part of the initial application. Unfortunately, the weather had turned in November when we were opening the restaurant. We were never informed by code enforcement that we were going to need to renew our permit or we would instead get an additional fence permit. It was all part of the initial application to put a restaurant here. Mr. Bill Smith: I don’t mean to argue, but Mr. Russell did not receive the proper approvals. I strongly encourage you guys to not approve the variance because again, we’re going to have a lot of people putting up pools and doing things without getting permission. Mr. Edward Conlan: I agree with what has been said by Mr. Thibodeau and Mr. Smith. This information is available to the public and Mr. Russell did not do his homework and look into the laws. Mr. Timothy Thibodeau: When you build a patio like this and extend the outside dining and serve alcohol, you are required to obtain a notification within five days from the State Liquor Authority. So this was something that was a well thought out plan. It makes me wonder, did the applicant actually file for that, you know, notifying the state of serving alcohol outside. I will leave it at that. Chairperson Mollnow: If there are not other questions rom the public I will aske the board if they have any questions or comments? I do have a question for Mr. Russell – What does the lattice aesthetically help you do? Mr. Donald Russell: It creates a sound barrier for the neighbors and also offers a visual screen from the northern property – you know, TNT Towing. Chairperson Mollnow: If there are no other comments then I would like to make a motion to table the request. Since the code regarding fence height can be interpreted several ways, there is a ggood chance the applicant does not even need a variance as the additional height of 16” is already less than the 2’ the fence is currently sitting off of the property line. I would like to wait until the Planning Board has reviewed the matter and given a decision as their determination will have more weight in regard to what the code says. Member Shanks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch Absent Mary Shanks X Anthony Kusaywa Absent Carolyn Dion X CONSIDERATION OF A USE VARIANCE FOR 39 North Erie Street: Chairperson Mollnow: Last item on the agenda is the use variance and area variances for 39 North Erie Street. The applicant would like to take an existing 1.49 acre of land sub divided them into four lots and construct three two-family duplexes facing North Erie Street which will be tied into municipal sewer and water with the remaining parcel not to be developed at this time. The property located at 39 North Erie is in an R-1 residential district which permits the following uses without a special use permit: congregate housing, dwelling single-family, outdoor recreation, and parks and public uses. In order for the applicant to construct two family units on the each of the proposed three lots facing North Erie Street, the applicant is requesting a Use Variance for each of the three lots, changing their designation from an R-1 Residential zone to an R-2 Residential Zone. The applicant is also requesting a 3-foot front setback area variance on lot four as the proposed building is only 2 feet from the property line and there's a minimum of a five-foot setback required. The applicant will also need an area variance for minimum lot size for each lot. In an R-2 zoning district we require a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet for a two- family dwelling. Lot 2 is requesting an additional 1489 square feet, lot 3 seeks an additional 1490 square feet and lot four seeks 1462 square feet and a front back variance of three feet. If the applicant is on the line could you describe the project and any new information you have to provide? Mr. Fred Metzger: Hello, this is Fred Metzger Land Surveyor here with Anthony and Laura as well regarding the proposed subdivision located at 39 North Erie Street. Originally, they purchased the land and proposed ten two-family units back there that would have access to North Eire Street. We went to the planning board and we had a lot of feedback from the board and public and so on and so forth with people not comfortable with that size of a project that magnitude and everything else, just too many units. So after speaking with some of the neighbors and kind of just seeing what would or would not work we ended up scaling down to three units fronting on North Erie Street and again as you mentioned earlier with the remaining lands off of William Street remaining undeveloped. So that brings us to where we are today, needing a variance in order to switch that designation from R-1 to an R-2. After the last meeting we figured that we needed to come back with some more information and more accurate number as far as the financials and the hardships being created. So first and foremost with the applicant, you know, as far as the financial reasons as we mentioned earlier when purchased it was single family, but then Anthony and Mill Town Homes recently finished the project up on Vliet Street as you can see with some of the numbers here, the same kind of numbers similar to what they would build down in this area, but between the purchase of the land and the infrastructure and then the development for each one with a single family homes and landscaping and everything else involved. I mean, the individual units would be around 340 thousand plus and again just looking at that general area being, well there's a couple of single family but it's pretty much overwhelmed with two-family and multi-family with those extremely large ones to the West and Lionheart, you know located to the west of this so they figured, you know, obviously building of that magnitude in that area would be next to Impossible if not impossible to sell a single-family at that price. So, the next fact that we figured we could do is just come in and apply for the R-2 designation. Laura put down there with the numbers as you can see where the cost of it. What would go into it how long it would take to get their money back out of it or even come close to breaking even but something again that would improve the area improve the neighborhood and again, even with these particular units as much as they are to in the if you look at them, they almost look like a single family even though they will be a two family structure. Secondly, the hardship relating to the property in question is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or the neighborhood. Again, as you can see with the map, with the exception of two parcels to the North, everything along manner is two-family or multifamily. Then we have the big developments on Williams Street being Lionheart and Cohoes Housing which are very large multifamily. Therefore, we figured that putting these here would look like single-family and will blend nicely together. The essential character of the neighborhood again looking like single family, but they will be two-family and pretty much being surrounded entirely by two- family or multifamily. Therefore, should have pretty much, you know next to nothing as far as negative effect on the neighborhood. Lastly, including here which was kind of the more difficult to hardship not being self-created. Well the parcels were purchased back in 2018 right before the zoning change. They were aware that it was R-1 but then looking into it and knowing the zoning changes were going on at that particular time. They were hoping that you know with this particular area of being that everything over all with the exception of one or two pieces are all two-family or with those very large multifamily units that the this particular parcel of land to make a developable within that area being that everything else around it is all existing two- family/multi-family that this one also would have been updated with that. So that's why we're here today. Hoping that we can get the use variance and we were with three two-family units. Chairperson Mollnow: Thank you Mr Metzger. At this time I would like to open the floor for public comments. Mrs. Elena Hogan: Being a resident at 47 North Erie Street, I would like to voice my opinion on the building of two family or multi-family homes on 39 North Erie. The determination of use variance and area variance: I don't see a hardship where the applicant does not see a reasonable return if he were to build ONE family homes instead of multiple. I believe the two family WILL alter the character of the neighborhood and be an undesirable change to it. Let me explain how many ONE family homes are in our neighborhood compared to multiple: The Napier Manor Avenue home is a two family/landlord lives in home. North Erie has five homes, one is multifamily/all are family members/landlord lives in home. Williams Street has two one family homes. You may not be interested in the rest of our small, quiet, private neighborhood but there are 10 one family homes which consist of Conboy and Cascade Streets. The north end of West Street is one family, south end multiple families/no landlord on premises. I believe one family homes are warranted given Cohoes young people coming back from college and choosing to live in Cohoes and wanting their own homes. Seven children within our neighborhood have come back to this neighborhood, two building their own homes. Mr. LePage's son and daughter have built in Cohoes. After living here 41 years, my husband and I rebuilt six years ago on our property on N. Erie instead of selling. We enjoy this neighborhood and what it brings. Thank you for reading my email and taking it into consideration. Ms. Kaylen Thorpe of 43 North Erie Street: Hi - I would like to submit this comment in regards to the application for variances at 39 North Erie street: I’m not opposed to having new neighbors; it would be nice for the property to be cleaned up and maintained. But the new owner has so-far demonstrated disregard for the neighborhood; within a few months of purchasing the land, the applicant brought in a small track-hoe, tore up a bunch of trees and other debris and left it in a big pile in the yard (the machine sat there for months), and took the windows out and tore off some of the siding, and left the place a complete mess. Why? It continues to sit there today, trash-strewn and unsafe. I wonder if the mayor would tolerate this across the street from his own home. Photos are attached. The applicant told the fire department that they could practice on the house. What about the neighbors who have to look at this eyesore, and the kids it frequently attracts, who bring noise and trouble from the housing developments behind us? How long is this mess going to sit there for? Is nobody accountable for this mess? This must violate numerous city codes for being unclean and unsafe. I challenge the City or the applicant to produce a valid City of Cohoes Vacant Building Registration form [ https://www.ci.cohoes.ny.us/DocumentCenter/View/103/Vacant-Building-Requirements- PDF?bidId= ]. In the final paragraph of this list of vacant building requirements, it states “In addition, the City needs to know that the building is properly secured.” The attached photos demonstrate that this property is anything BUT secure. When confronted about cleaning up this mess, the applicant’s agent reiterated that the fire department was making good civic use of it, no acknowledgement of the mess or effort to clean any of it up. Pawning this off onto the fire department is a convenient way of basically saying “not my problem”. I can understand letting the FD use it - but for how long? It has sat there like this for 2 years! If the applicant seeks the blessing of the neighbors, he would clean his property up. I propose that this application for variance not move forward until the property is demonstrably clean. That disregard makes me question what concern and commitment the applicant has for maintaining their property when they’re dismissive of doing so now. As an example of the damage caused by so much traffic on such a small street, also attached is a photo of a small cross-over between North Erie and West Street, facing 43 North Erie. This used to be straight. Over the years it has gotten eroded, and keeps getting worn further and further to the left. It is a muddy mess when it rains and people frequently get stuck. We can't even have our infrastructure maintained as it is - how is our street going to support all this increased traffic when it is literally crumbling? Photos are attached, taken this weekend, of the building across the street which contains 4 apartments, and has no fewer than 10 cars outside plus a motorcycle. It is unfeasible that tenants of this new development would have “only” 2 cars and no visitors. The applicant is filing for variances because there simply is not enough space to reasonably construct 3 buildings where there once were two, and that is why I oppose it. Mr. Edward Daigneault: I love on one Williams Street which is on the North side of the project. I do not believe it is proper to bring Manor Sites project into this because that was contested from the beginning and we got it – and nobody wanted it. We don’t want another, and I haven’t heard anything about a fence along my property. And how long will all of this construction take? Chairperson Mollnow: This is for approval of the three lots or the four Lots subdividing. So yes, they're planning on three with an additional lot that is not planned to be used right now and any fencing or separation between your lot and these Lots would be up for the planning Board review. So if this is for a use variance and if granted then the next steps would follow where they would have to get a planning board. Mr. Metzger, do you have any idea of the length of time a project of this nature would take to complete? Mr. Fred Metzger: We're hoping just you know, one good season, you know be able to get in there with approval to be able to kind of put the three foundations in at once the infrastructure as needed and then start to and then obviously start with the wood frame and then complete one then the next and the next but hopefully just you know, depending on when approvals are and you know when we can get started, you know, obviously you still have to finish this and then sums are back to the planning board and so on for some other information somewhere in the range of eight to ten months from start date again, depending on when to start date is and with Mother Nature and so on but that would be the anticipated. Chairperson Mollnow: Thank you, are there any additional public comments? Ms. Deborah Daigneault: I am the ex-wife of Edward. When we were married, we lived at 45 North Erie on the corner. The houses that were torn down were at one-point family houses where the owners also inhabited the homes. If you put in two-family homes to replace those they will most likely be occupied by younger families possibly with children and so on. That will create more traffic, and this is right now a very quiet neighborhood – especially before the apartments were put in. The increase noise level will completely change the character of the neighborhood and I oppose this. Mrs. Helene Druin: I live at 43 North Erie and I oppose having the three developments. We use to have two two-families before they burnt down and one is actually still standing. If you want to keep the Integrity of the neighborhood then two two-families would suffice because I know they just keep wanting to add these things and that little lot four that they have I know in time they will build something on it. If they do two-two families then I wouldn’t really have a problem with it. This road can’t handle more traffic, I have lived here for 20 years and it hasn’t gotten much better. Mr. Bill Smith: I think Fred mentioned that there would be access of Mannor to Convoy where some traffic could be alleviated. Mr. Fred Metzger: I believe that the only access to these three lots will be off of North Erie. Ms. Deborah Daigneault: Has it been taken into consideration that the area is a historical site, that it is part of the Erie Canal. In fact, 45 North Erie was a weigh station for the Canal and has a commemorative stone in front of it. Joseph Seman-Graves: I can comment on that. The parcels in question are not on the State or local registry for historic places. So there is nothing that I can see at this point that would speak to the applicant not being able to go forward with a project due to the historical value of the land. Mr. Ed Daigneault: Does the City have any plans of upgrading the street, like making it a two- way? Joseph Seman-Graves: I can’t speak to the two-way aspect as nothing has been presented to me regarding that proposal. DPW does have a yearly schedule of maintenance and I don’t believe that I saw North Erie on that list. Councilman Smith, please correct me if I am wrong but I didn’t see that on the approved roads that were just passed by the Council. Mr. Ed Daigneault: Well you are adding people to a road that cannot support it as is. Chairperson Mollnow: Thank you. If there are no other comments at this time, I would like to kick it back to Mr. Metzger to see if he has any additional comments. Mr. Fred Metzger: Just listening and jotting some notes down regarding kind of like you said, obviously they're fixing the road would be something that you know Anthony would work on with the city to improve it and obviously as far as maintenance and stuff of that nature, you know, being that these units are going to rent out for about fourteen hundred thirteen fourteen hundred apiece. It's going to kind of be a little upscale. So, you know, I can only assume and again taking a consideration that you know to keep those kind of people in there. You're going to take care of the area. You know, you're not going to have you know, a mess and everything else kind of built up there. So that way people aren't going to want to come home. You know, people aren't going to want to go there or pay that kind of money to live there first and foremost, you know, the second thing there with the existing dwelling again, there was actually like she had mentioned to two things. It was already existing to two families on the lot. So there were two families already there two of them and again that I think they said one burned down. And there was also two garages which I believe Mr. LePage has already cleaned up out there. And again the last one he started the process and then you know halted just with the fact that you know speaking with the fire department and they mentioned that you know, they like to do some of the practice in there. So I'm again, you know, we could reach out to him and talk to them into practice is done and again not so much leaving it there to be a nice work for the neighborhood. But just kind of if they're still using it why take it down allow them to get some more practice in for the real deal and then at the same time, obviously if proved in the project starts, that would be one of the first things that comes down so that way instead of going their place again making the whole neighborhood look better nicer and you know increase the value for everyone. To the property owner to the North, we anticipate doing a row of trees up there to block his view from anything up on that side. I think was that was about it, but with the comments there, but yes, just again here hoping that with the information that we provided and you know, we got the tentative planning board approval that you folks will see the need for the change of the use variance from R1 to R2 to allow for the development of these three again two families. Chairperson Mollnow: I just have one question. If the zoning changed in 2018 why is it not until now that you are coming to request a variance? Mr. Fred Metzger: It wasn’t until the end of last year that Anthony began looking to take this project on as we knew that without the zoning update reflecting what was on the ground, it would take a bit more time and financing to get approvals. Chairperson Mollnow: So based on the information that's been provided the financial hardship the discussion of the neighborhood from most of the neighbors stating that most of the houses along there were owner-occupied second family rented and that this is a unique situation, I would like to make a motion to approve the use variance for each of the three lots fronting North Erie Street. Mary Shanks seconds the motion and it passes unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch Absent Mary Shanks X Anthony Kusaywa Absent Carolyn Dion X Chairperson Mollnow: Moving on to the area variances. Are there any public comments or additional comments from the applicant? If there are no additional comments I would like to make a motion to deny the requested lot-size area variances on the three lots and approve the front setback of 3’ for lot four. Mary Shanks seconds the motion and it passes unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch Absent Mary Shanks X Anthony Kusaywa Absent Carolyn Dion X Meeting Adjourned at 8:06 PM