Zoning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD VIRTUALLY VIA THE ZOOM APPLICATION ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2020 AT 6:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Greg Mollnow, Chairperson Mr. Mark Cotch Mr. Anthony Kusaywa Ms. Carolyn Dion, Alternate Member MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Joyce Baranski, Vice Chairperson Ms. Mary Shanks ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Seman-Graves, City Planner Sharon Butler, Administrative Assistant CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 23, 2020 MEETING Chairperson Mollnow called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm Chairperson Mollnow; I’ll give everyone on the board a minute to review and if you have any questions feel free to speak up. Ok are there any comments or questions from the board? Ok, with none, I’ll make a motion to approve the minutes Member Kusaywa seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch X Mary Shanks Absent Anthony Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X CONSIDERATION OF AREA VARIANCES AT 201 COLUMBIA STREET: Chairperson Mollnow: Moving on to the 2nd item on the agenda; this is for an Area Variance at 201 Columbia Street. The applicant has completed the construction of a kitchen extension measuring 18’x18’ and an overhang for an outdoor meat smoking area measuring 10’x18’that is separated from the public eating area by a fence measuring 6’ in height and 18’ in length. The kitchen extension will have 2 service windows where the applicant plans on selling soft serve ice cream from. The applicant also proposed an outdoor seating area measuring 20’x30’ which will have 6 tables and an additional 3 tables on the sidewalk fronting Columbia Street. In addition, the applicant has submitted a plan which identifies 6 off street parking spaces at the rear of the building and 3 on street spaces on Matson Avenue. In the MU-1 zoning district bars and taverns are require to have 1 parking space per every residential unit. In this case, the applicant has 1,375sqft. of rentable space with one rental unit above the bar, this brings the total amount of required off street parking spaces to 10. The applicant has identified 6 suitable off street parking spaces which have been given planning board approval, so the applicant will be seeking a relief of 4 off street parking spaces by way of an area variance. The appeal under consideration is one for an area variance. Fr an area variance to be legally granted pursuant to Section 81 of the General City Law, the following issues must be considered: The benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighted against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant; 1. 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; 2. 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; 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial; 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5. Whether the alleged difficult was self-created. Alright, is Mr. Durrant on the call? Mr. Durrant; yea, I’m here Chairperson Mollnow; if you could explain anything else that I haven’t covered in the variance about the project Mr. Durrant; no I think that’s about it, I don’t think I’m going to be adding anything else to the list, as far, I think you mentioned the fence in the back there, I’m not going to do the concrete slab that shows in the pictures anymore because I was going to put a little fenced in area for the new smoker. But I need an engineer stamp for that, I already have the stamp for the other one, so I’ll go for it with the other one. I’m just going to fence off a little area directly below it for, so I can hide all the recyclables and trash cans, so they’re not visible for the customers who are parking back there. Chairperson Mollnow; ok, is there any public comments, or Mr. Durrant is there anything else you want to say before I move to public comments or questions? Mr. Durrant; no I good Chairperson Mollnow; ok, any public comments or questions? Joe Seman-Graves we got 1 sent in I’ll read it from Richard Devoe (comment attached). That was the only one sent in. Chairperson Mollnow; Joe just to comment against that, 12 is not required, it’s always been 10 required correct? Joe Seman-Graves; there was 12 originally but this is going back to 2008 when the last time this process happened. Then they reduced it and approved the plan with 10, so were going off of 10 and that’s what the new zoning code reflects. Chairperson Mollnow; ok, Joe Seman-Graves; their just referencing something that’s a little older Chairperson Mollnow; ok, so they can reduce it from 10 to 6? Joe Seman-Graves; yes Chairperson Mollnow; ok, are there any other public comments or questions? Ok with that we’ll close the public comment section and move over to the board. Members of the board do you have any comments or questions? Member Cotch; one question Chairperson Mollnow; go ahead Mark Member Cotch; this was already approved by the planning board? Joe Seman-Graves; yes Member Cotch; they did approve it? Ok, I was just curious about that. Joe Seman-Graves; and the planning board actually asked that they reduce the amount of spaces Mr. Durrant had. He proposed 9, 3 in the front on Columbia and the planning board asked that they remove the 3 on Columbia for safety concerns. Member Cotch; usually you’re not allowed to count the street parking. Joe Seman-Graves; well they would actually be on his property, they would just be, they would be going off of his property into Columbia in the front. Member Cotch; ok, I’m sure once the weather turns that they’re not going to use those tables outside either right? Joe Seman-Graves; right, so that’s where those 3 spots would be. Planning board asked that they not use those. Member Cotch; ok Chairperson Mollnow; my only questions or comment would be this; if approved, this parking lot would be paved and striped Mr. Durrant: That people would know where to park? Mr. Durrant; yea, that’s probably why we have some issues in the parking lot now, probably next summer I’m hoping. Chairperson Mollnow; so, you’re running out of time with weather this year to get it done. Are there any other comments or questions from the board? If there’s nothing else, I’ll make a motion to approve this variance. Member Kusaywa; I’ll second it, motion passed unanimously YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch X Mary Shanks Absent Anthony Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X Joe Seman-Graves; Tom, I have a questions for you quick before you get off the phone. Are you going to be able to fit the smoker under that original overhang you did? Mr. Durrant; yeah, definitely, I was jut, I figured I was going to put it underneath that other one that I was going to propose, just t make it easier for myself because there’s blacktop underneath the one that I have now, I’m just going to have to put a little bit of support underneath the new one, but it fits perfectly fine. Joe Seman-Graves; alright, if that’s the case, then you’re done with the boards Sir. Thank you for coming through and doing this process Mr. Durrant; you’ve made me very happy, thanks everybody. CONSIDERATION OF AN AREA VARIANCE AT 220 REMSEN STREET Chairperson Mollnow; ok, moving on to agenda item #3, this is for an area variance at 220 Remsen Street. The applicant, this is the 2nd time this has come in front of this board. Last time it was tabled waiting planning board review that has happened, so I’ll read through this again. The applicant has constructed a 6’ fence with 16” of decorative lattice work enclosing the applicants back patio. The applicant will be seeking a setback for the reason below, we’ll get into that in a second. Additionally the applicant has constructed a fence where 2 of the pleasant or decorative sides are facing inward rather that outward. The applicant will seek a variance for the direction the fence is facing. Fences 6’ or less in height are exempt from the setback requirement. Higher fences shall require site plan approval by the planning board in accordance with Article XIV and must be setback from the property line. In no case shall the height of a fence exceed its setback from an adjacent lot. (in this case the fence is 2’ off the property line) All fences must provide adjacent property owners sufficient space to access their property for maintenance and land repair. Under no circumstances shall a fence limit access to utilities. As per Section 285-59 of the city’s zoning and land use code “any fence shall have its most pleasant or decorative side facing the adjacent properties. The posts and other supporting structures of the fence shall face the interior area to be fenced.” The area variance considerations; the appeal under consideration is one for an area variance. For an area variance to be legally granted pursuant to Section 81 of the general city law, the following issues must be considered—this is the same 6 things from the last area variance, so I won’t read through all those again. So is the applicant on the phone with us? Joe, do you know if the applicant is online? Joe Seman-Graves; I’m muting on person who might have accidentally raised their hand, but that’s not them, then no. Chairperson Mollnow; is the applicant on the line? Joe Seman-Graves; I’m going to say no Chairperson Mollnow; ok, the applicant is not on the line to defend themselves. Members of the board before you move to public comments, do you have any questions about the project that either myself or Joe could answer? Ok, then we will move on to public comments at this time. Joe do we have any emailed in? Joe Seman-Graves; non were sent in, but just for reference so the board know, the Historic Preservation & Architectural Review Board reviewed this on July 8th and approved it pending the stain on the fence. Additionally the planning board reviewed this on September 14th for a final time and gave him a site plan approval after the applicant submitted an architectural design and it was stamped by an architect plan. Chairperson Mollnow; there were no public comments sent in, so I’ll open it up to anybody who has any. Members of the board any other questions if there are no public comments? Ok we’ll take this as 2 separate variances then. For the height of the fence variance, I would like to make a motion to approve this based on my understanding of the zoning law and that a 6’ fence is allowed and that the 2’ off the property line would only interact with the 16” of lattice, so that does meet zoning code. I will make a motion to approve. Member Cotch; I’ll 2nd it, all in favor motion carried unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch X Mary Shanks Absent Anthony Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X Chairperson Mollnow; ok, moving over to the decorative side of the fence, I will make a motion to approve this based on the location that the 2 sides of the fence that the decorative side is, is not facing out to the neighbors but is an alley way and the building façade, that nobody would be able to see them and the fact that this has been approved by the Historical Board already, so I make a motion to approve Member Dion; I’ll 2nd it, all in favor motion carried unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch X Mary Shanks Absent Anthony Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X CONSIDERATION OF AN AREA VARIANCE AT 124 HARVARD STREET Chairperson Mollnow; ok, moving on to agenda item #4. This is for an area variance at 124 Harvard Street. The applicant is proposing to install a small shed measuring 8’x8’ approximately 5’ from the Southern property line at the single family home located at 124 Harvard Street. Per Schedule B Schedule of Area & Bulk Regulations, all accessory structures in an R-2 zoning district must be 10’ off the side and rear property lines. The applicant proposes placing a shed at a distance of 5’ off the property line. This is an area variance so it’s the same 6 criteria we previously discussed. Is the, Laura or Kimberly either of you on the line? Joe Seman-Graves; Laura actually, so she did message me earlier. She works starting at 6:30 and she said she was going to try to get a break, but she works at the Eddy, so she apologized if she would not be able to be present. But she, there was a message sent. Chairperson Mollnow; ok, Joe is there anything more we need to know about since the…… Joe Seman-Graves; I actually went to the property and helped, well not helped, I requested that the applicant give a new site plan, it’s the one you see here. After reviewing it, the only thing I would say to you is she does have more room in the backyard, but the grade is substantially different from the middle of her back yard down to the fence line. So the side yard does make sense to put a shed, that’s really all I can add to it. It didn’t seem obtrusive for me, but I’ll leave that to you guys. Chairperson Mollnow; ok, moving over to public comment, any emailed in Joe? Joe Seman-Graves; no Chairperson Mollnow; anybody on the phone with public comment for this project? Member Cotch; so none of the neighbors complained at all? Joe Seman-Graves; one neighbor called but they were confused on where the property was. After I explained it, there was not complaints. Member Cotch; ok Chairperson Mollnow; ok, if there’s no public comments, I’ll close that section. Members of the board any comments or questions? Ok with that I’ll make a motion to approve the area variance Member Kusaywa; I’ll second it Joe Seman-Graves; Mark made the original motion don’t know if that was heard Chairperson Mollnow; no Sharon Butler; Mark Cotch made the original motion? Member Cotch; yes Sharon Butler; then 2nd by Anthony? Member Kusaywa; yes Sharon Butler; Motion by Member Cotch, 2nd by Member Kusaywa all in favor, motion carried unanimously YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch X Mary Shanks Absent Anthony Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X CONSIDERATION OF AN AREA VARIANCE AT 30 CHESTNUT STREET Chairperson Mollnow; ok moving on to agenda #5, this is for an area variance at 30 Chestnut Street. The applicant is proposing to install a small shed measuring 8’x12’, approximately 7’3” from their eastern property line and 3’ from their southern property line at the single family home located at 30 Chestnut Street. Again, per Schedule B of Area & Bulk R-2, this needs to be 10’ off the side and rear, so we’re look for approximately 2.5’ variance and a 7’ variances. Again this is an area variance so the same 6 criteria are required to be considered. At this time is Ms. Russell on the phone? Joe Seman-Graves; no Chairperson Mollnow; Joe, before we go to public comment is there anything you can add to this project? Joe Seman-Graves; this is very similar to the last one and I’m not sure why no one is showing up today. This is kinda of…no this one is pretty straight forward one as well Chairperson Mollnow; ok, any public comments that were sent in or called in? Joe Seman-Graves; no Chairperson Mollnow; ok, anybody on the phone with public comments or questions? Ok, members of the board? With that, I’ll make a motion to approve this variance Member Kusaywa; I’ll 2nd it, all in favor motion carried unanimously YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch X Mary Shanks Absent Anthony Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X CONSIDERATION OF AN AREA VARIANCE AT 175 VLIET BOULEVARD Chairperson Mollnow; ok, moving on to agenda item #6. This is for an area variance at 175 Vliet Blvd. The applicant is proposing to install an above ground pool measuring 54” in height and 15’ in diameter. The applicant proposes to place the pool 5’ away from their western property line. The applicant is proposing a deck off of the pool, however that’ll be a later variance for review, so currently the applicant is seeking a 5’ variance for the pool at the property line. Again, this is an R-2 zoning district where the property line offsets need to be maintained at 10’. It is an area variance with the same 6 criteria to be considered as the previous variances. So with that we’ll go to Mr. Decker, Mr. Decker are you on the phone? Citizen on the phone; can you hear me? Chairperson Mollnow; yes Citizen; I’m his neighbor, he called, I’m not sure he’s going to be able to be on the line because he called me and he thought that he could go to city hall. So I explained to him he needed to go online like I received the letter so I’m not sure if he’s’ going to be available or not. Chairperson Mollnow; ok thank you for that Joe Seman-Graves; I apologize if there was confusion, if you can get that message to him. I did send him an email and I’m hoping he got it, and also called and left a message. My apologies if he did not get any of that. Citizen; ok Chairperson Mollnow; ok, Joe anything since Mr. Decker’s not on, anything you can add before I move to public comments? Joe Seman-Graves; once again this is pretty, I’ll show you the map here. The pool is being proposed well over 50’ off the front property line, the fence it’s actually up against is actually an 8’ fence, so no issues that I saw with it Chairperson Mollnow; ok, so any public comments that were called in or emailed in? Joe Seman-Graves; no Chairperson Mollnow; any public comments from people in the room? Citizen; yes Chairperson Mollnow; please if you could just state your name and address for the record Kilt Merkley; I live at 179 Vliet Blvd. Chairperson Mollnow; ok Ms. Merkley; my first concern is the placement of the pool filter, where would that, does that still have to be the 5’ variance away from the fence? I’m just asking because I know the filter has to be one and running with the noise. Chairperson Mollnow; yes, if approved nothing can, anything need to be 5’off the property line, with anything involving the pool, whether it be the filter or anything at all. Ms. Merkley; ok so ok, so that basically answers my second concern, with the 5’ variance and as he stated that he wanted to do a deck, so that deck will not have to be on that side either correct? Chairperson Mollnow; correct unless he goes for another variance. Ms. Merkley; but would you grant a variance of less than 5’? Chairperson Mollnow; ummm Ms. Merkley; that’s my concern, if he’s getting the 5’ now and he comes back again then if he puts that deck up it’s going right on the fence that’s there already. Chairperson Mollnow; if he applies for another variance then we would go through the same questions, we would ask for public comments again and we’d ask if you have any issues with less than 5’, but right now it’s just talking about being within 5’ of the property line. Ms. Merkley; ok, so then basically I’m going to say I have an issue with the 5’ since you can’t guarantee to me that you won’t approve next year’s fence, you know what I’m saying? Chairperson Mollnow; I understand your point, I’m just saying that right now we’re talking about going within 5’ of the property line for a pool or any structure that goes along with it. And if he wanted to apply for another variance in the future then he would do that and go through all the proper channels, so going to a zoning board meeting, again going to public comments, to get less than 5’ so, right now this is just for the 5’. Ms. Merkley; I understand that, that’s my concern Joe Seman-Graves; the board would also take into consideration that a pool being within 5’ of a fence is one thing, but if you elevate that and put a deck there, then there’s a good chance that the person would easily look over the fence if within 5’ Ms. Merkley; that’s my issue yeah Joe Seman-Graves; so I think that while it’s a similar project, it’s 2 difference aspects to take into consideration, if that makes sense. Ms. Merkley; yes it does, ok that was basically my concern about the, what can be built on that 5’, basically anything can be built, if you guys give a variance again Chairperson Mollnow; correct he can build within 5’ of the property line if this variance is approved and Joe if I’m missing something please let me know. Joe Seman-Graves; I would state for the pool and pool accessories and I wouldn’t count a deck as a pool accessory since it’s going to be built later that would be a separate building permit, thus a separate variance so you would not just be able to automatically build a deck up to the fence line. Ms. Merkley; ok, so I’m the neighbor with the fence and we’re good, the neighbors, like I said I don’t know how to get this done, I don’t want anything closer than the 5’ so I can get around there and weed whack on the other side of the fence and stuff like that. That’s my concern. Chairperson Mollnow; Ms. Merkley I can’t talk for the other members of the board, but me personally I would not approve a fence or rather a deck to be within 5’ of a property line, if this is approved we would probably look at this as this guy’s already come for a variance, had it approved once, now he’s asking for more, which would look badly on him to keep coming back and asking for more and more. In my eyes personally, the variance, I don’t know if any of the other members of the board have anything else to say to it. Member Kusaywa; I agree with that. Member Cotch; me too Ms. Merkley; I met with him, talked about it, we have fires together, sit outside, so we’re neighbors, but I just want to make sure, you know like I said I want to make sure everything is clear of how I felt about everything, which I told him I would be at this meeting. That’s all thank you. Chairperson Mollnow; thank you for your comments. Any other public comments or questions. Doesn’t look like there’s anybody else on, so at this time I’ll move to the members of the board, any questions or comments? No questions or comments at this time I’ll make a motion to approve the variance for the pool and pool accessories to be reduced to 5’ for this variance, stating again that anything else would be again to come in front of the zoning board for review. Member Kusaywa; I will 2nd, all in favor motion carried unanimously  YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch X Mary Shanks Absent Anthony Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X Adjournment There being no further business, Chairperson Mollnow made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:02PM Seconded by Member Cotch