Zoning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD VIRTUALLY VIA THE ZOOM APPLICATION ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2020 AT 6:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Greg Mollnow, Chairperson Mr. Mark Cotch Mr. Anthony Kusaywa Ms. Mary Shanks Ms. Carolyn Dion, Alternate Member Ms. Kimberly Cardona, Alternate Member MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Joyce Baranski, Vice Chairperson ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Seman-Graves, City Planner Sharon Butler, Administrative Assistant CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 23, 2020 MEETING Chairperson Mollnow called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm Chairperson Mollnow; Joe, do you want to over the meeting guidelines quick? Joe Seman Graves; sure, pretty much keep themselves on mute, the zoning board is going to go through the material that’s been submitted prior and the current materials submitted for this meeting. They’ll open it up for comments from the applicants as well as comments from the public, we just ask that you keep yourself on mute until it is your turn to speak as a group and then if someone else tries to speak, just be cognizant of that and we’ll get through this in an orderly fashion. Chairperson Mollnow; Sharon do you want to take roll call? Sharon completed roll call only member absent Ms. Joyce Baranski. Joe Seman Graves; hold on I accidentally muted Carolyn. Carolyn if you can unmute please do so, otherwise just re call in and we will continue with roll call. Chairperson Mollnow; ok so if members of the board could review the minutes from the September meeting. Sharon; October meeting Chairperson Mollnow; sorry, October meeting Joe Seman Graves; sorry Greg really quick, Carolyn can you, are you here? Member Dion; yeah I don’t know what was going on, that’s really strange because my phone was unmuted. Sharon; ok I got you Chairperson Mollnow; Ok so I will make a motion to approve the October meeting minutes Member Cotch; I’ll second that and it passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Joyce Baranski Absent  Mark Cotch X Mary Shanks X Anthony Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X Kimberly Cardona Nonvoting member CONSIDERATION OF USE VARIANCE AT 431 COLUMBIA STREET: Chairperson Mollnow: Moving on to the next agenda item. Next up is consideration of a use variance for 431 Columbia Street. This is a 1 acre parcel, it is proposed to be subdivided out of a 2.3 acre parcel. A 9,100 sq. ft. Dollar General is proposed on the 1 acre parcel. The remaining land will remain with the current owner and is not part of the zoning. Applicant is requesting a use variance in order to establish a business in Cohoes. The current zoning of the property is R-1 residential. Applicant is requesting a rezone to a parcel that is C-1 office, retail, and commercial district. In order for the applicant to acquire that property and develop the Dollar General facility-to receive a use variance, the applicant will need to satisfy all of the following conditions; the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that the lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence; the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood; the requested use variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and 4, the alleged hardship has not been self-created. Due to the location of this property it is also needed to be sent to the Albany County Planning Board as well. Their comments were reviewed at the previous meetings, state recommendations specifically saying that state law requires that applicant must demonstrate unnecessary hardship, mere inconvenience and the fact that the land in question could be put to a more profitable use are insignificant reasons to grant a variance. The applicant should include an explanation that justifies the need for a variance with the criteria set forth in the state statue. So as I said this has been before the zoning board before, I know Joe is sliding through some of the slides from the previous meetings. At this time is there somebody here, I don’t want to pronounce the name wrong, Mr. Capinaro are you here? Mr. Caponera; I’m here can you hear me? Chairperson Mollnow; yes, thank you. If you could, I don’t know if you were part of the original stuff that was put in front of us, but if you could walk us through the entire variance in your application please. Mr. Caponera; by all means. Can you see me, I see you Mr. Chairmen, but I don’t see anybody else. Chairperson Mollnow; yes I can see you Mr. Caponera; ok so, thank you very much for allowing me to make this presentation and just to follow-up on the recommendations from the Albany County Planning Board which we all know is required by the general municipal law section 239, there’s an advisory at the bottom of it and I’ll read it into the record. “Convenience stores and motor vehicle washes are not permitted in an R-1 zoning schedule, however these uses exist close to the project sit. The City of Cohoes may want to re-evaluate Columbia Street designation as an R-1 zone. With that I will advise Mr. Chairman and members of the board that with me tonight I do have Rob Grundman who is a licensed real estate broker. He owns Big Blue Realty Group and also with me tonight is our engineer Chris Boyea with Bohler Engineering. I will tell the board that I was not engages orretained by Mr. William Gipp, who is the owner of this property and is the one applying for this variance because he owns the property. But I can tell you that Mr. Boyea and/or members of his firm presented on 5/27/2020 and requested the matter be tabled and then again on 7/22/2020, so I was then retained to by Mr. Gipp who owns the property to present a more, in my opinion, through presentation to the board. So I will start by wanting to place the supplemental statement and memorandum in support of use variance applications for property located at 431 Columbia Street City of Cohoes, Count of Albany into the record. I’m not going to read every bit of it but, I’m going to talk about this. First of all, we represent the property owner William G. Gipp. Mr. Gipp is a 77 year old gentlemen who seeks an area variance to construct the 9,100 sq. ft. single story retail building on a one (1) acre portion of the property as Mr. Chairmen has mentioned when he started. The remaining land is going to continue to be owned by my client and is not part of this application according to discussion I’ve had with my client, both on the property site and off the property site. He’s owned this parcel for approximately 30 years and it’s always been vacant and it was originally located in what’s formerly known at A-1 zoning district, which is currently zoned an R-1 zoning district. The current zoning only allows the very limited use or uses on this property, specifically single family dwelling, congregate housing, outdoor recreation, a park and a place of worship. And those are the only allowable uses in this current R- 1 zoning. Our firm as stated knows of the previous presentations that were made by Bohler. Also under section 81 of the general city law, which is entitle permitted action by the board of appeals as articulately stated by your Chairman, the board has the power to grant use variances so long as you meet the criteria which talks about reasonable return, the alleged hardship relating to the property is unique and doesn’t apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood, that the requested use if granted would not alter the character of the neighborhood and that the alleged hardship has not been self-created. And I sited a couple of cases which basically stands for the proposition that zoning boards are afforded considerable discretion in consideration, I should say considerate in considering application for variances and there demonstration. There determinations will not be disturbed if boards have a rational basis and supported by substantial evidence on the record. Mr. Chairman, not having been present at the 5/27 and 7/22/2020 meeting, Mr. Boyea told me in a conference call I had with him today that they spent some time discussing things such as, the character of the neighborhood, the unique circumstances and I’m just wondering if Mr. Chairman wants me to just go through the whole criteria. I’m happy to do that whatever your position is, I’m prepared to go forward. Chairperson Mollnow; if we could go through all 4 criteria. A few members of the board are new and weren’t at the 5/27 or July meeting, so if you could go through everything. Mr. Caponera; without doubt I will. So the first point: that the board has to consider is whether or not the owner of the property can realize a reasonable return. And if you follow my supplemental document, I submitted to Mr. Graves, point 1 the use variance is occurred to show whether or not there’s any principally permitted uses where a reasonable rate of return could be yielded under an R-1 zoning district; where the only principal use is that of single family residential. Now I was lucky enough to file a FOIL, freedom of information law request with your planner and he was kind enough to quickly respond and I was able to come in and meet with him a few weeks ago and go over various use variances that this board, perhaps not your particular membership, but this board had granted at various properties surrounding my clients property. Namely the Stewarts Shop at 4, I believe it’s, well it’s the Stewarts Shop on the corner of, CVS on the corner, 427 Columbia Street circle and the car wash across the street from the subject property and the St. Agnes Highway property that was just around the corner. And continuing on the burden of Mr. Gipp does not carry over to show whether or not developed uses by special permit can be granted, we only have to show that under the current zoning the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return. And so what we have, and what I’ve done is under the retention of Mr. Rob Grundman, Rob are you present? Rob Grundman; yes I am, can everybody hear me ok? Mr. Caponera; yes. So Rob I want to ask you a few questions and I’m going to talk to you about specifically right now if you have the documents I prepared, you prepared a proforma for my client which is part of exhibit, it is exhibit A. Are you familiar with that document? Mr. Grundman; yes Mr. Caponera; and did you prepare that document sir? Mr. Grundman; yes I did Mr. Caponera; ok and you prepared that document and in doing so, you didn’t pull these numbers out the air, tell the board how you arrived at these numbers. For instance, a potential value of a vacant lot in the City of Cohoes. Mr. Grundman; sure, I have access to the MLS. First of all I’ve been a real estate broker for 14 years, I’ve owned my own business at the Big Blue Realty Group for 12 of those years. My office is in Latham NY, so I’m very familiar with what sells around the surrounding areas. So we, we all have access to the multi listing service and I basically work with many builders that are in the area. So I got a lot of the information from a lot of sources. But, basically the $36,000 value that you’re looking at was actual sales that I saw in regards to the vacant land that was out there. I obviously added in other clearing costs that would be for a vacant lot to basically do the work that was there, so at the end of it we came up with some different formulas here for the success factor and the not success factor of doing business with this whole entire project, so those numbers that you’re looking at are actual numbers that I took off our MLS and also in speaking to counsel like yourself Mr. Caponera, legal fees that would come, entail with selling lots. So they are pretty accurate to my knowledge. Mr. Caponera; ok, so you took into consideration the actual sales that went on in the City of Cohoes, I think that’s shown in exhibit C, of my documents, of my submission is that correct? Mr. Grundman; yes Mr. Caponera; which those are actual sales is that correct Mr. Grundman? Mr. Grundman; yes the sales, thank you for blowing it up (document on the screen), if you can blow it up a little bit more. I have it in front of me as well, but yeah I took the average sales of the homes selling in the City of Cohoes within the last year, when it’s high, where I saw new construction, can be for a single family home, and I’m looking at between 210 and 220 for a property value in the City of Cohoes. Those are actual sales that took place in the City of Cohoes and obviously everyone’s home and many of the sales that are in that general area as well also, so yes Mr. Caponera; Thanks, I just want to make sure the board knew that when you prepared your proforma you were using actual numbers Mr. Grundman; that’s correct, I was 100% yes Mr. Caponera; so when you look at this property that’s been owned by my client for the past 30 years, you’re familiar with the fact that it’s vacant correct? Mr. Grundman; yes Mr. Caponera; and you’re familiar with the fact that it’s currently located in what’s called an R-1 zone which basically is a single family residential zone, you’re aware of that Mr. Grundman; yes I am Mr. Caponera; and when you prepared your proforma you based it upon trying to make this property developable for both an approved and improved single family lot on option 1, is that correct? Mr. Grundman; yes that’s correct Mr. Caponera; and you showed basically the numbers for clearing, grubbing, grading, erosion control, debris removal and utilities to that site, etc.at approximately I think you had a total on there of $12,000and then you have $20,000. Can you explain those numbers? Mr. Grundman; yes the clearing, grubbing figured would run at least $10-$12,000 to clear the lands and then the utilities, to bring utilities to the sight, I figured would be $20,000. I basically made some calls and I came up with those values, based on what I saw, so…. Mr. Caponera; now when you made some calls are you referring to contractors that you work for and work with? Mr. Grundman; yes Mr. Caponera; in and around the area: Mr. Grundman; yes Mr. Caponera; ok, so again these numbers aren’t numbers you pulled out of the air, these are numbers that are given to you by professional builders that build residential home on, within residential properties in the area, correct? Mr. Grundman; that is correct Mr. Caponera; alright and I gave you a basic very diminutive legal fee and then you based your potential value of a lot at about $36,000 based upon the average sales of homes within the City of Cohoes within the last year or so, is that correct? Mr. Grundman; correct, those are all vacant land property sales that I saw. I can only base it on what I see which I believe you should have an exhibit for. Mr. Caponera; I do, that’s exhibit c and that’s part of the record so at the end of the day, assuming that one lot was built on this property, if you take into account these numbers that you plugged in on your proforma, there’s a possibility that Mr. Gipp could have a profit of $2,500 assuming all these numbers are accurate is that correct? Mr. Grundman; yes, give or take, plus or minus yes. Mr. Caponera; I get it ok, and the option 2 is…. Chairperson Mollnow; excuse me sire, before we go on can we dive a little bit more into these costs, the one at $20,000 just seems a little high. So if you could give me a little more of a breakdown because I see in your option 1, it says a road bore required for water. Mr. Caponera; yes Chairperson Mollnow; so if we could a little bit more of an explanation as to that. Because for your information I reached out to Joe who contacted the city engineer to send me over the waste water and water lines plans for that area and to me connecting to water utilities in that area does not seem like we need to go through the road as there seems to be 2, at least 2 possibilities for water round the lot already Mr. Caponera; that’s a very good possibility, but Rob you based your numbers on what it would cost if you had to possibly road bore, is that correct? Mr. Grundman; correct, you’d basically be doing it from the idea that it would not be there, so you know and obviously, you know the chances are you don’t know that…so Mr. Caponera; alright, so assuming that you didn’t have to road bore, that number would be less which would mean that the net profit would be potentially a little bit more, but not, in my view having done a few hundred of these over the last 43 years, substantial? So, even if you took that number to $10,000, you’re still looking at a gross or a net profit, and again you’re assuming all these numbers are accurate, you’re assuming you’d get the $36,000 of about $12,500, if you didn’t have to road bore would you agree with me? Mr. Grundman; yeah right around 10-15 I agree with you yes, if we took our some of the cost yes Mr. Caponera; ok Mr. Grundman; again it’s all plus and minus depending on who you get Mr. Caponera; I understand. Then you’ve looked at option 2, which is 2 vacant lots and you know can you just go through those numbers again? Mr. Grundman; sure, I just doubled the cost for clearing, the grubbing, for basically clearing the lots, utility cost to the site again, I based it on the fact that it wouldn’t be there, legal fees obviously there’d be 2 properties there and then engineering and surveying would be a substantial cost. I believe developing what needs to be there and then the value of the lots pretty much right on the paper from what I saw, that’s basically what I’m seeing in the City of Cohoes and based on what I’m seeing, I don’t see too much of a great profit here, putting a couple of vacant lots…….. Mr. Caponera; ok, so assuming the road bore is out, that $20,000 would probably go down to 10, so when you get down to the net profit or loss, if you added in another 10,000 that’s basically no profit or gain if you’re proposing to use this property for 2 lots. Considering the fact that in doing that there’s a lot more work involved legal and there’s a lot more work involved with engineering and surveying, does that…….. Mr. Grundman; yes Mr. Caponera; ok, now the option 3 is a 2 single family homes…. Chairperson Mollnow; excuse me gentlemen, can we spend some more time on option 2? Sorry, I just want to make sure everything is out. Could you explain why the cost would double for clearing and grubbing? Mr. Caponera; go ahead Rob Mr. Grundman; sure, you’re looking at 2 vacant lots, looking at a lot more land to clear. So you like actually what your actually trying to do, is you’re actually clearing more land, to develop 2 pieces of property, there not going to be sitting side by side, so I doubled the cost there in doing that. The legal fees would cost more because now you’re developing 2 houses, the engineering, surveying I believe would be substantial increase because now you’re developing the land to basically set that site and the obviously potential, the $36,000 lot that’s what I’m seeing on paper. I’m sure you see that too, is that correct? Chairperson Mollnow; yeah that’s fine, I guess the other question would be, have you talked to or reached out to any surveyors or engineers in regards to this cost of engineering and surveying? Mr. Grundman; you know the engineering and surveying that I’m seeing, just based on builders, they cost a substantial amount of money from what an engineer is going to charge. I mean I see what the builder upstairs pays, I rent from Rosewood Builders so I see what a lot of other builders actually, there’s a lot of cost that go in. Mr. Caponera; Rob could you stop right there? Is Chris Boyea on the call? Mr. Boyea; yes I’m here Mr. Caponera; ok Chris you’re with Bohler Engineers is that correct? Mr. Boyea; yes that’s correct Mr. Caponera; and you heard me make my presentation when I started about the meetings before and the Chairmen has asked a question about engineering and surveying at $28,000 on a 2 lot subdivision. Having done a few hundred of these in your career, when you had a lot more hair, and even currently, can you speak to the Chairman about engineering and surveying costs on a 2 lot subdivision and an area such as this? Mr. Boyea; yeah, sure, I think that you know that number is probably on the higher side. Could be maybe 20-28,000. What it would require for that, probably is going to be an overall survey of the property, then we’re going to have to do a subdivision of the property with meets and boundaries and legal description. The other thing that’s going to happen I think with 2 properties in the way it’s, the way Rob just describes it, one of the sites is going to be behind the other site. So you have a house upfront, you have a house in the rear. So you’re going to have a longer driveway to get back to the house in the rear. The other thing that is going to happen here is you’re going to end up disturbing more than an acre at that point. So then we’re going to get into Stormwater mitigation, so it’s not just a simple single family lot, it would be now having to meet storm water mitigations and what we’re going to end up talking about later is that when you disturb the lot, that storm water mitigations, we’re going to be asked to mitigate it, right. I think that there’s some concerns from the neighbors already, that they would like the storm water improved and that’s going to be part of this project. So yea, I mean, best case, 20-28’s not unrealistic at all that Rob used. Mr. Caponera; and you do understand that with a 2 lot subdivision you’re talking about a subdivision application, it further complicates it. And if 1 lot is behind the other, you’re also looking at an area variance because the minimum lot frontage in any zoning code and that would require a variance also, which just ups the legal fees so. You’re familiar with that too because you’ve worked with me many times on these is that true Chris? Mr. Boyea; that’s correct. Mr. Caponera; ok, so Mr. Chairman I think we’ve answered that question regarding that price are you ok with that? Chairman Mollnow; yea, my only, one last question, would be the legal fees. Are they now looking for a subdivision going to the front parcel being commercial and the back parcel being retained? Mr. Caponera; absolutely Chairman Mollnow; ok so these legal fees currently being incurred in order to propose this plan? Mr. Caponera; absolutely Chairperson Mollnow; ok Mr. Caponera; so Rob you’re back on. We’re talking about option 3. Can you talk about this? I think this involves the actual construction of a home on the property. Are you there Rob? Mr. Grundman; yeah I am. I’m just looking down and looking at the numbers here. Yea I, basically based it on the fact that I saw on the City of Cohoes, there was homes being developed, condo’s being developed on the higher end, they were sold and they were at Admirals Walk Drive and those are ones that I saw being sold and I basically based a lot of it from what I’m seeing in new construction and on that area I really believe you’re look at minimum of 350 for an average new construction house and potential of the average home sold. I didn’t thing this would be a strong play from what I’m seeing, from what I, why we came up with tremendous loss here I thought. Mr. Caponera; well is that based upon surrounding commercial uses of the properties that surround this property, is that partial of why you came up with this conclusion? Mr. Grundman; no, I realistically, it’s based on what I saw as new construction costs. I realistically looked at it as new construction from what I saw, what a new home would cost to build. Mr. Caponera; ok, so, but you didn’t, I mean this is just a basic lot and I presume a residential area where there’s other residential homes around it, would that be true? Mr. Grundman; yes and………………. Mr. Caponera; but in fact Mr. Grundman, this property is pretty unique in the sense that it’s very, very commercially developed around this property. We know that for fact that all’s you have to do is look at the aerial and you see the recent development of properties. For instance, the property directly adjacent to my clients property, which was granted a variance to construct a 90 unit independent living senior apartment at 427 Columbia Street, you’re familiar with that aren’t you? Mr. Grundman; yes Mr. Caponera; and I believe that use variance was granted based on the records I got from Mr. Graves, in or around January 2nd---7th 2002. You wouldn’t know that date, but that’s it. And secondly there was also a car wash that was granted a use variance directly across the street from this property. You’re aware of the fact that there’s the car wash there aren’t you? Mr. Grundman; yes I am Mr. Caponera; ok. And also directly next to the car wash is a recently, well not recent but, approved Stewarts that is a Stewart’s your prototypical convenient mart as well as the gas sales, you’re familiar with that? Mr. Grundman; yup, yes I am Mr. Caponera; and I believe, well that was granted based upon the records that I was able to get, I believe it was back in 2012 and there was also a use variance granted for the corner piece which is 485 Columbia Street which is the CVS pharmacy, you’re familiar with that too right? Mr. Grundman; yes, it’s been there a while, yes Mr. Caponera; and then, the most, another recent or another use variance that was granted was an application for 15, at 15 St. Agnes Highway, that was an R-2 residential zone and that allowed for a pretty good commercial use. Ironically enough that’s a property, that’s a property I used to represent the former use of that was Noel’s auto repair. So taking into consideration of the surrounding commercial uses of the property, they were all granted use variances not that long ago, that would have a, did have an effect of the ability for you to sell this property, did it or did it not? Mr. Grundman; it did. It kind of hindered it. Mr. Caponera; ok, now I’m going to talk to you about that in a second because I’m going to now talk about you being hired by my client for a number of years to market this property. In fact, as part of our exhibits if you look….. Chairperson Mollnow; excuse me gentlemen, can I ask one more question, sorry before we leave the proforma? Mr. Caponera; go ahead Chairperson Mollnow; your proforma is based on the entire 2.3 acre parcel or is it based on only 1 acre parcel? Mr. Grundman; that was based on, that was based on the 2.3 Chairperson Mollnow; so it was the entire parcel Mr. Grundman; it was based on and it was also based on the fact that we wouldn’t be able to develop the 1 acre there so… Chairperson Mollnow; ok, thank you I just want to make sure that was clear to everybody Mr. Grundman; yup Chairperson Mollnow; ok sorry for interrupting Mr. Caponera; its ok. So I believe I was asking you to confirm that you were hired by my client and in fact signed listing agreements and I have it in the documents I submitted as exhibit B. Exhibit B is if you look at that, would you agree with me that that’s a listing agreement that your firm signed with my client? Mr. Grundman; that is yes, correct Mr. Caponera; and the listing date in the lower left hand corner of it, list date 11/3/16 expiration date 10/31/17. So that’d be your prototypical one year listing agreement? Mr. Grundman; that is correct Mr. Caponera; now, when you listed the property, when my client hired you do so, you saw, you knew this property was in this R-1 zone, is that correct? Mr. Grundman; I did Mr. Caponera; ok and you, did you try to sell this property for any allowable use in a R-1 zone? Specifically you heard me articulate the current allowable uses in that zone which is mainly a single family dwelling, outdoor recreation, a park, a place of worship and congregate housing. Did you have any ability to get any bonifide offers from anybody during this first listing from 2016 to 17 to utilize, or buy that property for a congregate housing? Mr. Grundman; no I did not Mr. Caponera; did you get any offers from anybody to purchase that property for a single family dwelling? Mr. Grundman; no I did not Mr. Caponera; did you get any offers from anybody to use that property for outdoor recreation? Mr. Grundman; I did not, no Mr. Caponera; how about a park and/or a place of worship? Mr. Grundman; no I did not Mr. Caponera; and then if I go on to Exhibit…. Chairperson Mollnow; excuse me gentlemen, before we move on from this listing, I just need to get some facts to state for the record. This record, or this listing was for the entire 2.3 acre parcel correct? Mr. Grundman; yes it was Chairperson Mollnow; and what was the list price for the entire parcel? Mr. Grundman; it was originally up for $750 and we dropped it to $695 on that original price and it was basically his decision to price there. He wanted to go a lot higher Chairperson Mollnow; so, just a question, why would this lot be priced at $695,000 compared to what you’re saying a prepped lot for an R-1 residential district at $36,000, what would be the explanation for the increase in cost? Mr. Grundman; well it’s also like at the time basically when I did the listing, he actually wanted to go for a much higher price above what I wanted to price the property at. So I basically took control of that after a year as you’re going to see. Mr. Caponera; if we can continue Mr. Chairman, I think you’ll see where we’re going with this. Chairperson Mollnow; ok Mr. Caponera; so you didn’t have any offers and when you, when you’re referring to he, you’re referring to my client Mr. Gipp is that correct? Mr. Grundman; yes that’s our client Mr. Gipp. Yeas, when I took the listing Mr. Gipp is as I call him, my boss, just like anybody else I work with. I call everyone my boss. He’s been my boss for the four years now so. Mr. Caponera; so you didn’t have any, did you have any interest in that first, 2016 to 17 when you listed the property? Mr. Grundman; we didn’t have to much interest, no Mr. Caponera; did you have any bonifide offers for any use of that property during 16-17, 2016 to 2017? Mr. Grundman; no we did not Mr. Caponera; so you then in exhibit B-2 entered into a second listing, at that time you listed the price at $350,000, is that correct? Mr. Grundman; yes Mr. Caponera; ok and I’m not going to be redundant, but I presume that you utilized your same technique and we’re going to get into that in a minute, how to sell this property and market this property for any allowable use in an R-1 zone, did you try to do that? Mr. Grundman; I did for all, for everyone Mr. Caponera; can you explain, could you explain to the board what your marketing strategies are as a real estate, as a licensed real estate broker in New York State? Mr. Grundman; sue, absolutely. Basically all of us as agents, we all have access to the multiple listing service, our strongest tool. We put it on the multiple listing service to reach out to large audiences. We had it on the residential, right there, as you’re going to see here, the property did not take to many calls or interest that were out there until recently so. We did reach out to New York City, we reached out to everyone that’s out there, that’s basically has access to the multiple listing service. We also hit Zillow, Realtor.com and Trulia and all my friend and all their franchise real estate sites along with Big Blue Realty Group, so everybody had access to the property so. And we also actually had flyers out to the local communities to see if we could develop it, see if we could get someone out there to develop the property so. It did not work very well until recently. Mr. Caponera; so it had no offers, no bonifide written offers during this second listing period is that correct? Mr. Grundman; that’s correct Mr. Caponera; but you tried and you would have entertained an offers from anyone to use that property for any allowable use in an R-1 zone, which I mentioned many times before is very limited uses, congregate housing, single family dwelling, outdoor recreation, a park and a place of worship within the zone. Did you have any offers from anybody to utilize this property, to purchase this property for any of those authorized uses in this A-1 or R-1 zoning district? Mr. Grundman; no we did not Mr. Caponera; ok. And again I will mention to you on the record, you’re familiar with all of the commercial activities that are around that property and have been given use variances by the zoning board of appeals of the City of Cohoes, are you familiar with that? Mr. Grundman; yes Mr. Caponera; and do you feel based upon your profession, based upon you being in the business and being a professional realtor for the last 14 years, that that would have had an adverse effect, a negative effect on your ability to sell this property for a residential use as allowed in an R-1 zone? Mr. Grundman; yes it limited us, yea Mr. Caponera; ok, now you didn’t have any success during our second listing and you then entered into a third listing agreement with my client and that’s exhibit B-3. And that’s a listing date of 2/6/19 through 2/6/20 is that correct? Mr. Grundman; yes Mr. Caponera; and by the way, these listing agreements are signed by my client and you is that correct? Mr. Grundman; that is correct, me and Mr. Gipp, yup, yes Mr. Caponera; and the original price in your second listing was reduced substantially down to 350 and I think that was based upon the fact that you had convinced Mr. Gipp, that the thought of him getting the original price, that you had, that he told you to list the property for in 2016 for 750 was, you know was out, was never going to happen, is that correct? Mr. Grundman; that is correct Mr. Caponera; so this third listing, I think you, I don’t want to speak for you, but I’m looking at the first page of exhibit B-3, it says price, what was the listing price there, $269,230.77? I’m looking at the top of your listing agreement Mr. Grundman; where we looking, at B-3? I’m looking at the listing agreement state 350. Mr. Caponera; ok. And again, when you had this listing agreement it was basically trying to sell the property for any allowable use in an R-1 zone, is that correct? Mr. Grundman; that is correct Mr. Caponera; and did you use the same marketing techniques that you testified to a moment ago in trying to sell this property or offer this property for anyone that wanted to utilize it for any allowable use in an R-1 zone? Mr. Grundman; that is correct, yea Mr. Caponera; and that would include a single family dwelling, a congregate housing, an outdoor recreation, a park or a place of worship would you agree with me? Mr. Grundman; that is correct, yes everything….. Mr. Caponera; did you have, did you have any bonifide offers from anybody during this period to utilize the property as in for any allowable use in an R-1 zone during your third year and your third attempt to try to sell this part of the property, the 2.3 acre parcel, any bonifide offers what so ever? Mr. Grundman; no we did not Mr. Caponera; ok, and then there came a time when an offer was produced to utilize the property for a commercial use that being a single story retail operation is that correct? Mr. Grundman; yes it was, correct Mr. Caponera; and could you tell the board what happened with that? Mr. Grundman; we basically got an offer from Primax, which is Dollar General and we presented to Mr. Gipp and Mr. Gipp obviously was pretty pleased with that and we came to an agreement and moved forward with the contract here and basically looking to develop the land with Primax. Mr. Caponera; so when you say the land, you’re talking about a written offer that was produced and accepted by my client, contingent of course on receiving all approvals from the City to utilize the property for a use that is not allowed in the R-1 zone of that being a single story retail operation, is that correct? Mr. Grundman; that is correct Mr. Caponera; and that’s on the 1acre of the 2.3 acre parcel right? Mr. Grundman; that is correct Mr. Caponera; the building that we’re talking about is according to the site submission by Bohler engineer, by Mr. Boyea is a 9,100 sq. ft. retail single story business right? Mr. Grundman; yes that is correct. I have the contract in front of me that is correct Mr. Caponera; and the contract, when was that contract signed? Mr. Grundman; it look like here in October Mr. Caponera; of what year? Mr. Grundman; 10/15/2019 Mr. Caponera; ok and that offer is for how much? Mr. Grundman; 275 Mr. Caponera; ok, ok so continuing on. Now I’m on page 3 of my submission… Chairperson Mollnow; excuse me, if we could please go back to exhibit B Rob, I don’t know if this is better for you or Victor. Can you give us a description of how you came to the valuation of the land, the sale price based on acreage? Were those the prices that Mr. Gipp wanted to get out of the property? Mr. Grundman; yeah, I mean we, you know obviously I represented Mr. Gipp and he wanted to get top dollar for what he thought it was worth for the property. I obviously cut it in half, as you can see from what, from what I went with. The possibility there is a main road going through the property so, I went with what he wanted so. We went and obviously marketed to everyone so and finally did get an offer. Chairperson Mollnow; ok and how did you get to the listing price of almost $36,000 correct for a vacant lot? Mr. Grundman; the vacant lots that I’ve seen out there in Cohoes recently, that’s what I’m seeing so yea. Chairperson Mollnow; just saying this $350,000 is 10 times the cost of a vacant lot that you’re seeing in Cohoes? Mr. Grundman; this particular lot here is on a main road, so it’s a little different, I mean I obviously market the property based on what I see, so I obviously, that’s why I didn’t reduce it from that point so, I thought that was fair. Chairperson Mollnow; ok, that kind of gets us some better information, thank you Mr. Caponera; so if can continue Mr. Chairman Chairperson Mollnow; yes, please Mr. Caponera; ok, so on page 3 it indicated that Mr. Gipp, had indicated that he has owned the property for approximately 30 years and when he purchase the property about thirty years ago, he indicated to me that, with legal fees and what have you and he used at that time a pretty high powered legal team that I’m familiar with, they’re no longer out there, it was $30,000 in addition as we all know the property is vacant, it’s never had a building on it, he’s never received any income on it and he’s paid taxes, both school and general taxes and I attached to exhibit D-D as in David a copy of the 2020-21 school tax bill, the front portion which is 714.37 and a copy of the 2019 tax bill amounting to 172. 61 for a total of $886.98. If you average those totals and this was me just kind of using simple math, over the last thirty years, he’s probably spent in the $19,000 range in taxes on this property and realized no income what so ever. So between that and his purchase price, he’s up in the $50,000 range. And as indicated, and we discussed before, the property’s been marketed for several years with three separate listing agreements and the only offer that’s been made on the property is the one that Mr. Grundman just testified to which is the offer to utilize it for a retail business for $275,000. So the case before this board shows that Mr. Gipp, in my opinion and the cases that I’ve submitted and we’ll talk about, that he’s owned the property for approximately thirty years, it’s always been vacant, according to my client’s recollection he spent approximately 30,000 to acquire the property nearly thirty years ago, he’s realized no income from the property since his ownership, about, approximately thirty years ago and other than the offer that is before him, there’s no, he’s never received any other offer from anyone to purchase the property of any allowable use in a R-1 zone, as confirmed in the three years that Mr. Grundman testified to show a good faith effort by my client to market his property and sell his property for any allowable use in an R-1 zone, which is shown that after nearly four years of professional real estate marketing and advertisement for both residential and commercial developers as articulated and testified to, that my client has produced a high quality and high quantity of proof required to satisfy the elements of a use variance and I site one of the leading authorities on zoning which is New York real property practice, 4th edition, Patricia Selken Section 29.11 and I also site several third department cases, these are appellate division 3rd department cases, which our department here in the City of Cohoes, which support that. And the board, and I threw in another case at the bottom of page 4, that the board cannot base its decision on generalized community objections. I heard from Mr. Chris Boyea that at one of the meetings or maybe both, there was some neighbors that complained about the use and potential drainage issues. Continuing, the courts of the State of New York have held that the inability of a land owner to sell his property for a permitted use, purposes for, permitted purpose evidences as a lack of reasonable return, again I site, the authority, one of the leading authorities on that, which is Anderson American Law of Zoning and there’s also appellate division 2nd and 3rd department cases that have upheld use variances that have been granted by zoning boards based upon testimony of real estate professionals who testified that, the value of the property and the under market ability to property for particular use. Now in addition, as the board is well aware as part of this application we have to show that this variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Well, I’ve talked about it and I’ll again discuss it with the board that when the board considers the impact of how the proposed single story retail building fits in the character of the neighborhood, and the surrounding community, you can clearly see that Columbia Street in this area is a major commercial thoroughfare. All you gotta do is look at the plan that’s been put up by Joe, it would not be appropriate to build a single family home or homes on his site because it’s not economical, it’s not economically realistic given the commercial uses surrounding his land. A uniqueness of the site, it’s narrowed down its location along a commercial corridor and the commercial utilization of the neighboring properties established that a single family use is not appropriate due largely to the City’s previous use variances that were approved to surrounding properties for commercial uses including the Stewarts, the CVS pharmacy, the car wash across the street, which is far more intense in terms of noise, than this proposed retail use and the use variance granted to the parcel at St. Agnes Avenue. Clearly these previously granted use variances allowing commercial uses are far more intense than the proposed 9,100 sq. ft. single story retail building. In addition, this proposed variance will not have any adverse effect on the neighborhood nor will it alter the essential character of the neighborhood. And I site the, one of the leading authorities on this, essential character of the neighborhood again mentioning what’s surrounding the property. When you talk about uniqueness, it, you look at the area, you’ll see that the property, when you come out on the side street, the side street there and I’m trying to see the name of it, I think it’s called Monroe Street, that Monroe Street comes out directly at my clients property and again it’s on a main thoroughfare which has become very commercialized and I did also, would mention the fact that there’s a preexisting commercial use directly across the street from my client which is not the newly constructed car wash, with vacuums and dryers, but also a garage of sorts. I’ve got pictures of that but it shows up on the site plan also. We believe that this property is even more unique that the other properties where the board, I should say the City of Cohoes zoning board, it may not have been this particular board at the time, granted these variances to these surrounding properties together with the fact that you got this Monroe Street T-boning or coming right out of the T intersection right in front of my clients property. You have to think about that with headlights coming right out into what could potentially be the only allowable use here which is for the most part a single family residence, it makes the property unique. The facts of this case show there’s substantial commercial development of the various properties directly abutting my clients property including all the items or all the uses I just mentioned and the reasonably new car wash and the new 90 unit independent senior apartments located directly next door at 427 Columbia Street, which dwarfs what would be proposed in this area, that’s a 4 story structure. I’ve stood there, I’ve walked the property, I’m very, very familiar with this parcel and what’s surrounding it. And then we talk about self-created hardship, which is the last element. The cases in the State of New York stand for the proposition is they don’t go for a situation where somebody prospects their property. I’m going to explain that. It would be a situation where, let’s say the company that wants to build this property for commercial uses buys it and then comes and asks this board for a use variance or any other board that is the true essence of a self-created hardship, where you buy the property knowing that it is going to need a variance and you still buy it no matter what and you come in and seek a variance. That’s a self-created hardship. This case is not self-created hardship, it is not an instance where Mr. Gipp bought the property with an eye towards trying to develop it for a use not authorized in the zone, he’s owned the property for 30 plus or minus years, and in addition when it’s established that there’s an economic obsolesce of the permitted uses within the zone, the single family residential, that being single family residential, this is an exception to the self-created hardship rule. This was a language that was utilized successfully by Mr. Michael Lynch when he was once a lawyer like me, before he became a judge when he was able to have the Cohoes, this board grant a use variance for the car wash across the street not that long ago. So clearly the uses, the use variances allowed by this board for commercial uses on adjacent neighboring lands for uses far more intense than this proposal shows that there is an economic obsolesce for using his land for single family use that being single family, a park, outdoor recreation or a place of worship. We believe that the supplemental statement along with the case law and other quoted treatises exhibits including the testimony by both Mr. Grundman and Mr. Boyea shows to the zoning board that my client as owner of this property has demonstrated an unnecessary hardship and we’ve shown that he cannot realize a reasonable return which has been demonstrated by competent financial evidence, he’s demonstrated that his hardship is unique, does not apply to substantial part of the neighborhood and that the variance will certainly not alter the character of the neighborhood and clearly by virtue of the fact that he has owned the property for 30 plus or minus years and the recent variances that were granted has established that the use of the property for single family is economically obsolete which is an exception to the self-created hardship rule, shows that the applicant should be looked at favorably by the grant of this proposed variance. Chris Boyea, you’ve said very little in this, would you like to add anything beyond that which you’ve already said, relative to your position as an engineer that’s worked on this property? Mr. Boyea; yea, I think just understand that there are some newer board members in the last few months, that just generally we’re look to construct a 9,100 sq. ft. single story dry goods, retail store at this location and just based on the location that’s there as Mr. Caponera has mentioned it is a commercial heavily traveled road that’s out there. There are other uses in the area that would generate noise or use lots of utilities, water, sewage, production of those type of things and this use is about a benign as you’re going to get as far as impact goes. It doesn’t draw a lot of people to the community, in other words it’s there as a general store to service the community that’s in the immediate vicinity. It doesn’t use any real substantial water or sewage, it’s about 90 gallons a day is what their averaging and the reason for that is they just have a mop sink and clean floors, they don’t use water in any production, they don’t produce any food, they don’t produce any odor that’s in the area so, you know, a single family home might use maybe 300-400 gallons a day with water and showers those types of things. So when you put it in perspective, very low demand on infrastructure from water, sewer and again no odors from cooking so. The hours of operation are similar to those around the area that we talked about, generally 7AM to no later than 10PM at night. And it’s, it just seem like in this general area that the commercial uses are all around this piece of property so it seems to be a good fit, it doesn’t seem to have a lot of traffic or intensity that’s there so ultimately their not look for any tax incentives here so as far as school taxes go, they’ll pay the full school tax valuation without putting one single child in the school district. As far as property taxes go, they’re not looking for any PILOT or payment in lieu of taxes, this is you know a fully funded by a private developer and it just seems like it would be a very good ancillary use for the assisted living adjacent to this, a place to buy everything from greeting cards to personal health to dry good, retail food type uses, so. Happy to answer any questions that any of the board members may have on the overall proposed use that’s here and then I’d like to also note that the developer here through the first 2 meetings, has also said that this will require site plan review and approval, the first step is with this board for a use variance but should we be fortunate enough to be issued the use variance for a commercial use here, we will need site plan review and approval by the planning board. They did submit a few building elevations just to show they’re willing to go above and beyond to fit into the community so it isn’t necessarily just a standard run of the mill, you know store, there is the ability to invest further and really make this really be an example of how it can be a transitioned from the residential into the commercially highly traveled Columbia Street. So, happy to answer any questions, but just wanted to provide that past history and some site information there. Mr. Caponera; thank you Chris. Mr. Chairman that’s our presentation and we’d be happy to answer any questions. Chairperson Mollnow; ok, thank you very much. Joe doe we have any public comments from the previous that were emailed or any emails in for this meeting from the public? Joe Seman Graves; no, there was a reiteration of the ones that I said, but those individuals did not show up here, they didn’t submit a formal comment so, I’ll give it to anyone to speak now. Chairperson Mollnow; if there’s anyone from the public, please feel free to unmute yourself now with any comments. Joe Seman Graves; nothing on my end Chairperson Mollnow; ok, if there’s no public comments then we’ll close that portion. Members of the board do you have any comments or questions for this proposal? I have one question to go back to the proforma. Member Cotch; I have one question Chairperson Mollnow; go ahead Mark Member Cotch; my question is, going back to the various considerations, the first one, you can’t get a reasonable return on the property. Well if you’re asking $269,000 for an acre of land and then someone’s going to build a single family house, I wouldn’t even look at this property for that amount of money, especially when the average cost of a parcel of land is $36,000, so it’s no wonder no one even made an offer, seeing it’s that high. I wouldn’t even look at the property seeing it costs that much. And even though it is on the road, it’s a main road, I don’t see how you can ask that high of a price. Mr. Caponera; can we address that? Chairperson Mollnow; yes please Mr. Caponera; Rob are you still on? Mr. Grundman; yea I’m still on the call. Yes I’d be happy…. Mr. Caponera; wait a minute, before you say anything I’m going to ask you some questions Rob. I’d like to respond to the members question, which is a very good question I think, but I’m not speaking for him, but it would appear that he’s saying you priced yourself out of the market for any potential single family residential home and I need you to speak to that, because you know my point is that the facts of this case clearly show that my client cannot use this property for any allowable use and the fact that he’s owned if for thirty years and has hired a professional licensed real estate broker to market his property regardless of the price and we’re going to talk about that in a moment, if that doesn’t show a uniqueness and a hardship that been testified to, in my 43 years of doing this, and I’ve done many hundreds of them, I’ve never seen anything like it. But Rob when you first listed this property, did you list it for the full 2.3 or 1.3, I’m looking at some of your listings? Mr. Grundman; the first time we listed it, it was for the full, every listing was for the full 2.3 Mr. Caponera; 2.3 and we’re only talking about, now about the 1 acre parcel is that correct? Mr. Grundman; the 1 acre parcel is what we actually sold the parcel for correct, yes we go the 1.3 is when I pended the sale and the computer (couldn’t understand what he said) the property. Mr. Caponera; and when you looked at the actual sales of homes, residential single family homes that you were able to present to us in exhibit C, the actual sales in the City of Cohoes, over the last plus or minus year, you look at the average acreage of the size of the lots, there was nowhere near the 2.3 acre parcel would you agree with me there? Mr. Grundman; that’s correct. Most of the home that sell in Cohoes are about a quarter of an acre if not less, they don’t have big lots, they are about 60 x 120, correct. Mr. Caponera; so when, and even you testified earlier, that the initial asking price, you’ve indicated to my client that is, was you know, out of site and it was reduce I think you said about half and ultimately to this price of the 1 acre lot for 275. So you’ve heard what the member asked about, well his opinion and I don’t want to speak for him, that you scared away any potential buyers for a single family lot, recall this is not just a ¼ acre lot, it is a 2.3 acre lot, is that correct Mr. Grundman? Mr. Grundman; that is correct and it’s on a very prime location for…..yes Mr. Caponera; prime location for a residential home? Mr. Grundman; it would be more prime location for commercial surrounding area says that, but again we had it out there for everybody Mr. Caponera; is there anything more you want to add to that, that I haven’t brought up in answering the question of the member that asked about the price was so high it technically would have scared anyone away from offering the property, for buying the property for residential use? Mr. Grundman; he’s owned the property for 30 years and he wanted to make a profit. He’s obviously a 77 year old man, so he wanted to basically market it, the property for what he wanted. We originally went for a higher price, I obviously went with him, I told him we’d test it and then we didn’t get a big result, we obviously finally got a result so.. Mr. Caponera; thank you Chairperson Mollnow; Mark do you have anything to add to that? Member Cotch; no that’s it. Chairperson Mollnow; I’d just like to go deeper into that. If you could explain to me, we’re saying that a typical lot in Cohoes sells for 36,000 at about a quarter of an acre, which would mean that an acre would sell for 40,000 at a quarter about 160,000 and this property was being sold, marketed at 350,000 for 1 acre? Mr. Grundman; no, we ended up the sale of the property pretty, we had an idea obviously to market the property for residential obviously and everyone that wanted to buy the property, you know we obviously stayed with the number that’s really what he wanted to stay with, he wasn’t going to reduce the number, he’d rather have an offer for it. He’s owned the property for 30 years, like Mr. Caponera stated, and this was his way of moving on so we finally did get an offer so. But $160,000 if you’re looking at it like that, I look at it like this area is more prime than some of the other areas that are in Cohoes, so I really thought this was a better prime location that the property would be worth a little bit more than that so. Chairperson Mollnow; and then you’re saying prime for commercial not prime for residential correct? Mr. Grundman; well it’s prime for commercial in the sense that it surrounds it, but it was marketed for everyone, you know you have a CVS like Mr. Capinaro said, a Stewarts Shop and the carwash that just got approved and you have the senior home that are next door so it’s sitting out like it would fit in like better, that’s probably why we got a person to come along and want to develop it, saw a vision so. Mr. Caponera; it’s interesting Mr. Chairman that, and I see these Albany County Planning board notifications all the time because I not only represent clients before the zoning boards and planning boards and sign review boards, but I also represent municipalities, it’s rare that a Albany County Planning board would give an advisory about convenience stores and motor vehicle washes are not permitted in an R-1 zone, however these uses exist in close proximity to the site and that the City may want to reevaluate Columbia Street designation. That’s something that in 43 years of practice I’ve never seen come out of a, the Albany County Planning board. I mean to me that evidence is acknowledgment by Albany County Planning board that this is become, has become a commercial area with commercial development around it, granted by use variances by your board over the last so many years. Putting my client in an untenable situations as you can see by the evidence that’s been produced, he has no other option. Chairperson Mollnow; ok I have one further question, just going back to the proforma, if you could explain how you were derived to only fit 2 lots on the allowable 2.3 acres. I’ve talked a lot to Joe about this and we thought that at least 3 lots could fit into this space of the 2.3 full acres of the property. Mr. Grundman; well the way I looked at it, I actually saw, the vision I saw when I looked at the lots was that it was going to be one house behind another, you could almost have a pocket lot type situation. I think that was brought up so I felt like you're going to want to have space between the lots. If you tighten it much, I didn’t see that going to happen so I looked at it a little different than you so, I really feel strongly that it would be to tight to fit a third house. Mr. Boyea; and I’d like to just ask from an engineering stand point that to create the density, you know when I was listening to the members, I’m smiling just being in engineering mindset that, 2.3 acres divided by ¼ acre lots would equal about 9 lots, 9x36-324,000 so if we were to really just kind of shoehorn as much as we possibly could in here, but that would require a cul de sac approach, we would have to build a road and extend the water main and the sewer main into the road and build it to city standards and again you go through all that construction to realize you know maybe 8 or 9 lots, which may be feasible if you were to go through the approval process, however you then would have to find 8 or 9 homes, people wanting to build new homes here and that’s just tough that the market, the area round here just isn’t going to you know, entice somebody to build a dream home here, you know this would be creating a very intense subdivision kind of in there for people to build a home next to these commercial uses. Mr. Caponera; Chris if that were to happen it would substantially increase these proforma costs would you agree with me? Mr. Boyea; oh yea, sure, yea I mean just with the road construction alone and the infrastructure for extensions and yea absolutely, storm water management would have to go underground due to the intensity of ¼ acre lots, yea, absolutely. Mr. Caponera; having done a few of these with you over the years you’re talking hundreds of thousands of dollars to do that. Mr. Boyea; it cost a lot to build a road Mr. Caponera; yea, that’s just the road right, we’re not even talking the infrastructure and the storm water and things of that nature correct? Chairperson Mollnow; the only reason I bring that up is not for discretional sizes, it’s more for what the code would allow for size of lots but I understand your points. Mr. Caponera; thank you Chairperson Mollnow; at this time is there any other comments from the board? All members stated no Chairperson Mollnow; at this time I will make a motion, I’m going to make a motion to deny the variance. I believe that all though information has been provided to speak to a few of the points required, the lot has not been marketed for residential space based on the information you guys provided for lot size and vacant lot capacities, which mean that the reasonable return point of the variance has not been met. Member Dion; I’ll 2nd that. Motion to DENY the variance passed unanimously YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Joyce Baranski Absent Mark Cotch X Mary Shanks X Anthony Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X Kimberly Cardona Nonvoting member Chairperson Mollnow; thank you everyone for your time, it is 7:44 and I’ll call the meeting to adjourn