Zoning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD VIRTUALLY VIA THE ZOOM APPLICATION ON WEDNESDAY, May 26, 2021 AT 6:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Greg Mollnow, Chairperson Mr. Mark Cotch Ms. Carolyn Dion Mr. Anthony Kusaywa, Vice Chair Ms. Jacqueline DeChiaro MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Seman-Graves, City Planner Sharon Butler, Administrative Assistant Chairperson Mollnow; we will call the meeting to start at 6:30PM. Roll Call taken; all members present CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 28, 2021 MEETING Chairperson Mollnow; for the second item on the agenda, we’ll review the minutes from last month’s meeting. Chairperson Mollnow; I’ll make a motion to approve the minutes Vice Chair Kusaywa; I’ll 2nd All in favor, motion carried unanimously YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Mark Cotch X Anthony Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X Jacqueline DeChiaro X CONSIDERATION OF A USE VARIANCE FOR 5 NEW CORTLAND STREET Chairperson Mollnow: moving on to the first variance for tonight, this is for a Use Variance at 5 New Cortland Street. The applicant is seeking to purchase and occupy the former location of REO Welding. The applicant seeks to use the space for a metal pipe fabrication, welding as warehouse for storage of HVAC and related equipment. The property in question is considered a legal non-conforming use, meaning the use is grand fathered in the district, however any expansion or redevelopment of the current use beyond 50% of the total ground floor area, this includes rebuilding after a fire or natural disaster, would not be permitted. However the building in question has not been in use since January 2021 and with that the applicant is requesting a variance as a part of their due diligence as the buyer of the property. The Waterfront Mixed Use district (MU-2) shall provide activities and amenities consistent with one of the regions only waterfronts accessible from 3 sides. Included in this are services, waterfront-related services, offices, small workplaces, and civic and residential buildings central to the City’s waterfront. Non-conforming uses in buildings except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the lawful use of land or buildings existing on the date of the adoption of this chapter may be continued as legal non-conforming although such use of building does not conform to the regulations specified in the chapter. However, the following provisions shall apply to all non-conforming uses; 1. No non-conforming lot shall be further reduced in size. 2. Property owners at the time of the adoption of this chapter may expand an existing non- conforming use up to a 50% increase in ground floor area while maintaining the same non- conforming use and meeting setback, green space, building height, and FAR requirements. Otherwise, a non-conforming use may be expanded by grant of a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 3. After the date of adoption, no non-conforming building, with the exception of legally non- conforming single-family and two-family uses, shall be enlarged, extended or increased unless such enlargement would tend to reduce the degree of non-conformance. This shall not be interpreted to prohibit additions to residential dwellings that do no impact the degree of non- conformance with regard to setbacks or minimum lot size. Discontinuance; in any district, whenever a non-conforming use of land, premises, building or structure, or any part or portion thereof, has been discontinued for a period of one year, such non-conforming use shall not be re-established, and all future uses shall be in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. Such discontinuance of the active and continuous operation of such non-conforming use, or a part or portion thereof, for such period of one year is hereby construed and considered to be an abandonment of such non-conforming use, regardless of any reservation of an intent not to abandon the same or of an intent to resume active operations. If actual abandonment in fact is evidenced by the removal of buildings, structures, machinery, equipment and other evidences of such considered to be completed, and all rights to re-establish or continue such non-conforming use shall thereupon terminate. Sorry about that, I know it was a mouthful. Just to finish it up, the applicant is requesting a Use Variance in order to establish a business in Cohoes. The current zoning of the property is Waterfront-Mixed-Use and it will be required to be rezoned to I-1 Industrial in order for the applicant to occupy the property as legal conforming use. To receive a Use Variance, the applicant will need to satisfy all of the following conditions; 1. The applicant can not realize a reasonable return, provided that the lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence. 2. The alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. 3. 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. Joe do we have the owner or the purchaser of the property on? Yes I’m on Paul Falladi here Chairperson Mollnow; Hi Paul. Is there anything else you’d like to expand on with the project and the variance you’re looking for tonight? Mr. Falladi; you kind of said most of it. We’re trying to do our due diligence to get the use variance. It’s part of our due diligence process mainly because if God forbid something happens and the building is destroyed, it’s not a cheap building, and we’d like to be able to rebuild and as you said it’s grand fathered in and if it goes vacant for a year, which the business is very successful, we don’t see that happening, but in the event it did go vacant, the grandfather goes away. The list of uses, really don’t conform to that piece of property when you really go through the list. The existing building fits within the character of the neighborhood there now. The use is the same use, REO Welding did steel beams, Collett Mechanical is going to be welding steel pipes. They’re mechanical contractors for HVAC systems so it’ll be a similar use. I guess I’d open it up to questions. Chairperson Mollnow; ok at this time members of the board, do you have any questions? Ok, if not Joe is there any public comments sent in? Joe Seman-Graves; no Chairperson Mollnow; ok at this time we’ll open it up to the public. Members of the public if you could, if you have a comment please state your name, address, and then any comments. Joe Seman-Graves; I don’t see anyone trying to unmute themselves in the chat Chairperson Mollnow; please if you’re having an issue unmuting yourself, please write a comment so we know you’re trying to be heard. If there’s no one, we will go to, we’ll close the segment of public comments and move back to the board. Members of the board, any additional questions or comments or anything you’d like to speak about at this time? All members responded no. Chairperson Mollnow; at this time I’d like to make a motion to approve the variance based on the fact that this building has been in use and it’s going to be a continuance of use, it’s not a change to the neighborhood and there is no real gain that the new owner would be seeing other than they’ll be able to use the property as it has been used for the past years. Member Cotch; I’ll 2nd Motion carried unanimously YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Mark Cotch X Anthony Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X Jacqueline DeChiaro X Joseph Seman-Graves; Paul I’ll follow up tomorrow with a confirmation letter Mr. Falladi; ok thank you very much. CONSIDERATION OF AN AREA VARIANCE FOR 120 N. THIRD STREET Chairperson Mollnow; moving on to the next variance, this is an area variance for 120 N. Third Street. Applicant has constructed a 12’ above ground pool 3’ away from their Northerly and Easterly property lines. Applicant seeks two variances; 1 for 47’ front yard setback variance from the required 50’ and one 7’ side yard setback from the required 10’. 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: 1. The benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant; 2. 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; 3. 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; 4. Whether the requested area variance is substantial; 5. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 6. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. At this time, Mr. Hill are you on? Yes, I’m Shane Wadell I live here. Mrs. Hill; he is my son in law Chairperson Mollnow; if you guys could just explain a little bit on the property and the variance. Mr. Wadell; we’re requesting a variance, we made a mistake in the process of putting up the pool without knowing what the specifics codes were. The pool itself, so last year as you guys know with the COVID and the difficulty with the pandemic, we made the call in May to kind of cancel our vacation and I have a 6 year old and an 8 year old and we decided to put in what amounts to be the smallest above ground pool you can buy. We decided to use the money from the vacation to put the pool in, realizing that the kids weren’t really going to be able to do much all summer. So that was kind of our goal was to give them something to do in the safety of their own home. And where we put it, that’s really the only yard we have to speak of because if you look at the overhead view where the cars are lined up (on screen) that’s actually the side we use as the front of the house. So I realize as far as the variance goes, where the pool is, is considered the front of the house but that’s actually not the side of the house, that’s used as the front of the house. We actually use Miller Avenue side. We have put up a 6’ privacy fence that we got a permit to put in a few years back and we really didn’t envision the pool being an issue because you can’t see it from outside the fence. As far as we know all of our adjoining neighbors have never had a problem with the pool. We did make the mistake of doing it without a permit, which we’re trying to fix, we’ve applied for the permit, paid for the permit so we’re trying to go through the proper channels to make this all legitimate. Our letter says that a neighbor complained and I don’t know what neighbor it would have been and I can’t honestly understand what the complaint would be. Where it is, it’s not a danger to anybody else’s property. We have letters in our favor from 2 adjoining properties that touch our property. So I don’t understand other than the fact that we need the variance why it would be a problem to anybody. I really don’t have much else to say. We put it in for our children, we just tried to give them a safe place to play in the summer in the confines of our own yard, so I hope you guys consider that, what we’ve asked for. Do you have anything Theresa? Mrs. Hill; no it, just I agree with we just wanted them to have a safe place to be in during the summer with everything being shut down. It’s inside of our yard, we keep up our property, we’ve got one of the nicest properties on our street. We keep it up and we don’t have any problems with anybody so it’s kind of surprising that somebody complained about it. But hoping we can move forward and just get the variance and move on. Chairperson Mollnow; perfect, we appreciate that. Members of the board any questions or comments before I move to public comment section? All members responded no. Ok, Joe any public comments that we’re sent in? Joe Seman-Graves; read comments from the following citizens: Natalia Gyorke 118 N. Third St. in favor, Lauren & Matt Moore 10 Jennings Place, in favor, Mary Ellen Robinson in favor and Wesley Kipp Sr. 39 Miller Ave. in favor. (all comments are with minutes) That was everything sent in. Chairperson Mollnow; thanks, Joe. Any other members of the public that are on that would like to voice a comment? Again if you could just state your name, address and feel free to give any comments. Joe Seman-Graves; I don’t have anything else. Chairperson Mollnow; I’m not seeing anything, so we will close the public comments. Members of the board any other questions, comments or concerns? All members responded no. Ok I’d like to make a motion to approve this variance with the stipulation that it is approved for a pool only at this time. If any other structure were to replace the pool, a new variance would have to be granted. Member Dion; I’ll 2nd Motion carried unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Mark Cotch X Anthony Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X Jacqueline DeChiaro X Joe Seman-Graves; I’ll send a confirmation letter to the applicants tomorrow and I’ll also forward that to the building department. Mr. Wadell; thank you for your consideration. CONSIDERATION OF AN AREA VARIANCE FOR 118 BRIDGE AVENUE Chairperson Mollnow; ok moving on to the last variance of the night. This is for an Area Variance for 118 Bridge Avenue. The applicant has placed one 8’ x 10’ shed in the front yard of their property and is requesting to place a 2nd 8’ x 10’ shed in the front yard. The applicant requests a variance from the maximum build to location for the front yard in the MU-NC district. The applicant cannot build beyond 20’ from the front property line and is requesting a 32’ and 22’ variance respectively for each shed. Appeal under consideration is for an Area Variance. In order 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 consideration as the previous one, so I won’t read them off again. At this time, Mr. Sutliff are you on or anybody that can speak to this? Joe Seman-Graves; I wanted to throw something in. I think he’s on here and trying to unmute himself. This is kind of an odd one because the whole point of the zoning district was to bring everything to the front of the property and really have that neighborhood feel when you’re walking down the street. Unfortunately there’s 2 maybe 3 properties on Bridge that are set back so their front yards are practically their backyards. So there’s not a technicality but the zoning code didn’t really address these properties that well. I thought he was on here, we just had someone knocked out of the room, so might not have him to speak on it at the moment. Chairperson Mollnow; Joe, since you have more history than anybody is there anything else that you can add to this? Joe Seman-Graves; no, the real concern lies with he’s trying to clean up his front yard right, and he’s trying to put sheds up in order to get everything off the grass. Now normally in a backyard, no one would have a problem with this, but since it is the front yard there is the aesthetic appeal that we’re looking at and that’s really where the setback come in with this. So all we’re really looking at, there’s really no side setbacks in this district, so we’re looking at the distance from the property to the shed. We’re not really looking at how many sheds he has necessarily because that would be dictated by the amount of property you can cover. So while there, I can go through the pictures he submitted. One of them is going to be placed here and one is existing here (shown on screen). The one that is here in my opinion is a nice looking shed, there’s not a lot of opportunity for other people on the street to have multiple sheds. Would it have been nice to have one larger shed here, yes but this is the situation we find ourselves in. So what we’re looking at is the setback but also aesthetics are part of that when the board is making their votes, so just keep that in mind. I don’t want to speak for the applicant but I have no real concerns with this project other than unfortunately his front yard is his backyard. Member Cotch; Joe did they need a variance for the other shed, the one that is up already? Joe Seman-Graves; they’re going to be looking for one. So what had happened…… Member Cotch; so that’s included in this variance? Joe Seman-Graves; yes Member Cotch; ok Joe Seman-Graves; that was put up not too long ago. The applicant just did not have all the paperwork in properly. So when he went to do that, he sent the paperwork in for the 2nd shed as well and that’s when I was notified that is was up. It’s one of those things that, and we’ve had this before but they just didn’t understand the rules and he has been to his benefit, working very hard to understand the rules and get the paperwork in. Chairperson Mollnow; Joe, I’m assuming this does not need to go to the planning board at all? Joe Seman-Graves; no planning board doesn’t look at anything for single family or 2 family housing. Chairperson Mollnow; ok Joe Seman-Graves; unless it’s a fence over 6 feet high Chairperson Mollnow; ok Member Dion; are they any comments by neighbors at all? Joe Seman-Graves; no Chairperson Mollnow; I was just going to say that. We’ll open it up to public comment then. If anybody on has any comments please at this time state your name, address and feel free to speak. Joe Seman-Graves; nothing over here Chairperson Mollnow; ok, so we’ll end public comments. Joe my only concern is there any way we can put a stipulation with this variance that the, what these sheds need to look like? That they can’t just be a kind of put together shed thrown up in somebody’s front yard. Member DeChiaro; that was going to be my question too. Are we approving, when we approve this is this for the shed, for the receipt that we’re seeing here? Is that the shed they have to put on there? Joe Seman-Graves; yea, so this is the one here (on screen) actually ordered for this area. It’s not being built until he gets an approval. But that is the specific shed (picture of shed on screen). The other one looks very similar to this and in my opinion is a nicer shed, it’s got windows, it’s almost like a she shed if you will. It’s more of a little work space. If the board likes this design, I don’t want to speak for you, but you would most likely like the other one. I’m sorry I don’t have that, I took and older picture, I apologize I should have gotten an updated one. Chairperson Mollnow; so Joe are we allowed to approve the variance with the stipulation that the construction of the shed needs to match the style of the house, in regards to roof overhangs and siding? Joe Seman-Graves; it wouldn’t match the other shed that’s currently there. I’m sorry I don’t have a picture of that one. What you see in front of you, this Tuff Shed, almost mirrors the other one there. So you could make that stipulation but the shed itself would kind of, the one that’s currently there would be sticking out a little bit. Chairperson Mollnow; what do you mean by sticking out, sorry? Joe Seman-Graves; just aesthetically it wouldn’t match the current style of the house, it would match the shed we’re seeing here. Chairperson Mollnow; ok then could we make the stipulation that it should be some sort of a pre- fabricated and not just something somebody stuck up on a weekend? My only concern with approving this and saying you can put a shed anywhere you want on your front yard is just, somebody goes out with a couple of 2x4’s and sheets of plywood and puts something up. Joe Seman-Graves; no, no this shed it is literally the one he ordered that will be coming in Chairperson Mollnow; yea, my only concern is, if something should happen, that gets knocked down and they re-build in the same spot… Joe Seman-Graves; understand Chairperson Mollnow; I don’t know how to word the stipulation to add to the variance. Sharon; it has to be in kind to what he has, to what he’s going to have there now. If something happens this this and has to be rebuilt, it has to be the same type and style of shed to replace it. Vice Chair Kusaywa; yes I agree with that Joe Seman-Graves; or they come back to the board again for approval Sharon; yes or come back for a new variance so you can see a new design or whatever you need Chairperson Mollnow; ok, I love it. So I’ll make a motion to approve this variance based on the shed, the shed style we see in the picture, the Tuff Shed being approved and any modification needed are to be in kind. Any modifications or rebuild are to be in kind to one of these Tuff Sheds or similar. Vice Chair Kusaywa; I’ll 2nd it. Member Cotch; Joe before we vote can I say something? Joe Seman-Graves; sure Member Cotch; I really think one shed is enough. I think having another one is really going to change the, just the way the neighborhood looks and I know he doesn’t have much choice in what he can do but I really think it’s going to change just the way the neighborhood looks and it also might set any example for other people who might want to put one or more sheds on their property. I don’t think it’s a good example to set, so I’m kind of against this. Joe Seman-Graves; is it a placement issue or in general having 2 sheds? Member Cotch; even just that one. I drove by it, I just don’t think it looks right, having a shed in front of your house like that. Like I said, I know he doesn’t have much choice but I think 2 sheds it beyond the limit. That’s the way I feel. Chairperson Mollnow; so Joe since this is a variance for 2 separate sheds then we’ll do an approval on each shed then? Joe Seman-Graves; you can yes Chairperson Mollnow; ok so I will start by making a motion to approve the shed that would be in the driveway area, the one that has not been built yet based on it mirroring what we see, and if there is any issues it is re-built in kind. Sharon; do I have a 2nd? Chairperson Mollnow; or a counter motion? Vice Chair Kusaywa; I’ll 2nd Motion carried unanimously YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Mark Cotch X Anthony Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X Jacqueline DeChiaro X Chairperson Mollnow; ok so I will make a second motion to approve the variance for the 2nd shed that has the 44’ front setback that is already existing on the property Vice Chair Kusaywa; I’ll 2nd it Chairperson Mollnow; again this would have to be rebuilt or replaced in kind. Vice Chair Kusaywa; correct. Motion carried unanimously YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Mark Cotch X Anthony Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X Jacqueline DeChiaro X Chairperson Mollnow; Joe is there anything else to discuss before we adjourn the meeting? Joe Seman-Graves; yes, let’s talk cannabis for a second. I’m going to have a conversation at the next council meeting about how the council would like to see the city roll out within our zoning and planning on cannabis sales. I say this because we have no policy, so it’s not enforceable to say no right now, so we need to put something on the books. Other communities and my personal opinion on how I’m leaning is pick areas, corridors, streets that would be appropriate. But then have it as a Special Use Permit by the planning board. So don’t outright allow it, but have the planning board, just like we do bars in downtown, have the planning board on a case by case basis have the ability to approve or deny. And that would really allow for the board to look at what uses are adjacent, you don’t want too many shops opening up so we can’t just outright allow it, so that would be regulated through the planning board. But ultimately this comes down to a zoning issue because it has to be updated in the zoning code and allowed through zoning. So I would love to get some opinions. I’m sorry it wasn’t on the agenda, but we had our first inquiry last week so it’s, we know it’s coming. And ultimately what’s happening right now is much like the State Liquor Authority they have rules and regulations on what you have to do to operate or own a bar, the I don’t have the name for it yet, lets’ call them the cannabis consortium for NYS, they want to see that you have leased out or owned a building that no longer has a mortgage on it as a first step because the banks can’t get involved since it’s not federally regulated. So it has to be out right owned, so you’re already seeing possible entrepreneurs’ or possible business owners reaching out to business or shop owners seeing what the status of those building are. I think we’re not behind the ball but we need to address it before we are. So I’d love to get feedback and thoughts. Member Dion; it’s funny because when we bought 50 Mohawk last year during the pandemic, in our mortgage it says you cannot open a brothel or cannabis shop for I think 2 or 3 years after purchase in the building. That was interesting. Vice Chair Kusaywa; my opinion on the cannabis thing is it should not be near a residential area. I mean I’m on Broadway, I don’t want to see it opening up across the street, because there’s no businesses here, it’s strictly residential. Member Dion; I’d agree with that Joe Seman-Graves; not in residential loud and clear. My thought would be downtown, even though downtown there’s a couple of different districts there, I would look more towards residential obviously being the no, but commercial and industrial being where I’m leaning. With that our downtown isn’t really commercial other than the strip where you have the Sub Way, so even Remsen Street wouldn’t be part of that. And Industrial you’re looking at, there’s not a lot of opportunities but you won’t find yourself near the Norlite area of the world with Industrial. So that will abut residential unfortunately, as an Industrial area. I don’t want to say we’re not classified right for industrial, but we have residential within our Industrial. If we limit it just to commercial there’s not a lot of opportunity for opening stores because it’s really just, it’s really Saratoga Street from Ontario down to Columbia probably minus a few houses there. Chairperson Mollnow; there’s really no open store fronts there right Joe? Joe Seman-Graves; I mean, what I see, what’s going to happen you have a lot of people who’ve opened up smoke shops and have opened CBD vape shops, they’re the next logical next step. And I know people in Albany have been for years now lining themselves up for that with this current business model. That would lean itself towards Remsen Street area, not totally against that but it would have to be on a case by case basis if that was the route taken. Vice Chair Kusaywa; yea, I was thinking Remsen Street, kind of between, from Columbia down, not the south end of it. Chairperson Mollnow; I would agree with Tony. I think Remsen Street or even Saratoga Street same general area if you can find an open lot Vice Chair Kusaywa; kind of like where Blaire Lumber was, there’s an area there. Member Dion; you’re going to need, it’s going to be a high traffic area, so you’re going to need a lot of parking Joe Seman-Graves; right, and that’s why it should be a case by case basis. Because we don’t, one thing we don’t have is parking around the City. Member Dion; right Chairperson Mollnow; I think the other logical area would be next to where the Hoffman’s was approved, that’s on Saratoga right? Vice Chair Kusaywa; right Jose Seman-Graves; yea, the only issue with that is it’s the gateway to the City. So I’m not the one who makes the decision, that would be the planning board and zoning ultimately but you have a car wash, possible cannabis location and then the back drop would be the Historic Erie Canal lock. Other communities have tried to, don’t want to say hide, but take it off their main streets in order for kids not to view it constantly. I think if we do that we’ll be opening it up to the residential area unfortunately. Vice Chair Kusaywa; absolutely I agree. Chairperson Mollnow; yea, I think I’d prefer to keep it in the somewhat restaurant/commercial, not commercial but the restaurant kind of district we’ll call it, that we have. Joe Seman-Graves; alright, I really just want to get some feedback so when I go to the council I can say this is what the zoning board said, this is what the planning board said, what are your thoughts and then ultimately we’re going to have to come up with a zoning amendment. Because right now, like I said we have no recourse to stop someone from opening something up anywhere. If there’s an approved spot for retail and that would be considered retail so… Chairperson Mollnow; one other area that would be a likely spot is where the old Cohoes Mall was. I don’t know if anybody has an opinion on that. Member Dion; yea, I’d agree with that Chairperson Mollnow; I’m kind of thinking that would solve a lot of parking issues, but then you put it right next to the senior center. Joe Seman-Graves; so we’re sticking pretty much to non-residential, preferably somewhere downtown commercial, but stick it away from residential. Vice Chair Kusaywa; yes Chairperson Mollnow; Joe, I agree with the special use requirement, that no matter what it would have to be reviewed. Joe Seman-Graves; yea, because we currently review any new businesses, but that is strictly to determine if their business activity and this could count as that, but if their business activity is going to hinder the surrounding area. Whether its deliveries or traffic or the use might be to loud. But if we don’t permit it correctly someone could come up with very clever answers so we want to make sure it’s specifically written out that you need a special use permit, you need to be reviewed for the use of the location and it’s not just about, just the things that come from the uses, the use specifically. So I think that’s the way to go just like we do with our bars. Now you’re also going to have regulations that most likely come down just like the State Liquor Authority states; you can sell X amount of feet from a church, you can sell X amount of feet from a school. So by those things we have a ton of churches in our downtown, so that might limit even more where that area is, but we’ll have to wait and see if those regulations come out. And just to clarify this has nothing to do with growing. I think we’re not a farming community anymore, so I don’t see that opportunity and that would pretty much be precluded to Western Avenue with any farming. Vice Chair Kusaywa; Joe one comment to make on 118 Bridge. My cousin owns the house right next door, 122 and she doesn’t agree with anything and she didn’t complain about this so it can’t be to bad. Chairperson Mollnow; Joe just to back track to the cannabis thing, have you looked at anything from Massachusetts? I know they’ve obviously been going for a lot longer that we have in New York Joe Seman-Graves; yea, I mean everyone does it differently so Massachusetts I haven’t looked at, they leave it up to the municipalities so it changes from spot to spot. They tend to leave theirs more tucked away and hidden. But if you go to Washington State, they’re right on your main streets and I never saw a problem. Literally I lived a block away from one and there were no issues, it was very cordial, and it was just like any other shop so there were no issues but it really depends on the cliental in the area to a large degree too. So you have to consider where you’re placing it, what’s around it and how it’s going to affect foot traffic, how it’s going to affect you’re visual take on the area. Do you put it next to a bunch of abandon buildings, then you, that might be different than putting it between 2 successful shops where you know you have good cliental and eyes on the street. Vice Chair Kusaywa; right Joe Seman-Graves; and I think the owner/operator is going to make a bid difference too. You’re going to want to have trust in that person, that they’re doing it above board and legally. I’m sure there will be tons of regulations built in by the State anyway, but that’s why a special use permit, you can kind of filter that out a little bit in my opinion. Chairperson Mollnow; ok with that I’ll call the meeting to adjourn at 7:16PM.