Zoning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD IN THE COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF COHOES CITY HALL ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 25, 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 Joseph Moloughney, Non-Voting Alternate Chairperson Mollnow; we will call the meeting to start at 6:31PM. Roll Call taken; all members present CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JULY 28, 2021 MEETING Chairperson Mollnow; first order of business is to review the meeting minutes from July. 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 (2) AREA VARIANCES FOR 33 MANN AVENUE Chairperson Mollnow: next order of business is the two (2) area variances for 33 Mann Ave. The applicant is looking to construct a 2 family home on the property currently classified as vacant land. The applicant is seeking two (2) Area Variances from the side setback requirements in the R-2 Zoning District which is 10 feet. The applicant seeks to center the building on the property leaving 5’7” clearance on each side of the property lines. 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. Mr. Livarchuk are you there? Joe Seman-Graves; he’s not here but I could do an outline of it, if you want. Chairperson Mollnow; yes please Joe Seman-Graves; so in 2019 the applicant was approved by the Planning Board for construction of a 2 family home requiring a Special Use Permit in the R-2 district. At that time they had the orientation of the house pretty much going long way so these two variances were not needed. There were 2 variances needed at that time, one for the lot size and one for the set back from the property line. We extended that building permit that they requested in 2020 and at that point the applicant came back with a different size building and wanted to change the orientation based on that building and that’s why they need variances on the north and south property lines Chairperson Mollnow; members of the board, any questions before we go to public comments? Member DeChiaro; asked about Planning Board review, when the planning board approved the building was it going long way? Joe Seman-Graves; explained that the Planning Board does not review the site plan, they were just looking at the use of a 2 family house on there, they still have to meet all the setback requirement, and with them changing the orientation of the house they would still need the 2 variances that they received, and these 2 variances. Chairperson Mollnow; asked Joe Seman-Graves about the previous variances that were granted. Joe Seman-Graves; stated that the one variance was so they could create off street parking Vice Chair Kusaywa; asked if they changed the size of the original house Joe Seman-Graves; stated no, they just changed the orientation of the home Chairperson Mollnow; asked if there were any other questions or comments and asked Joe if there were any comments sent in Joe Seman-Graves; read comments that were sent in from neighboring property owners (in file) Chairperson Mollnow; at this time we will open it up to additional public comments, if you could come up state your name and address for the record. Sean O’Brien Cherry Street; expressed his concerns about the property at 33 Mann; the setbacks of being so close to one another, and 2nd is 2 family will devalue the neighborhood, as it tips the balance of the scale with 2 families and how close they are versus 1 family. He stated that there were 3 neighbors that just built, bought or renovated after 2019 and we had no say in 2 family. He stated that his wife’s family lived there and that the lot used to be a single family home. It should stay a single family lot. Condition of the property and the person has owned it for several years now has never taken care of it, several complaints have been put in about the condition of that lot. My concern about him building a rental on that lot is that person does not live in Cohoes, is not part of the community and does not care about our community as much as we do, and he won’t take care of the property as someone who is owner occupied. Another concern is Cherry Street is used as a through street and in that area the streets are very hard to plow, snow was piled up last winter and now there will be a 2 family there with 4 more cars and there will be issues getting emergency vehicles down that area. He also stated that the setback should be kept at 10 feet, a 72% reduction of the setback… Chairperson Mollnow; I just want to make a note that you said 72%, it’s being reduced from 10 to about 5 ½ feet? Mr. O’Brien; the letter we received said it would be reduced to 3 feet 3 inches, to 3’ 3” not from 10 feet to 7 feet Joe Seman-Graves; stated that it was 2 side setback of 3’ 3” being 2 sets of variances Mr. Sposito; my son purchased the lot next store, which we are building a duplex on, my son plans on living in one and renting the other side to his cousin. The only concern I have is if I knew it was going to be that much closer to my house I would have built fire walls. My only concern is fire hazard being closer than 10 feet is, might obstruct the views, I’m not sure what he’s putting there, so that would be my only concern is a fire hazard and being to close to my house. When we went in there and we did get a variance to put a 2 family on it and we were approved of that, but we built the house according to all the setbacks, so it wouldn’t upset any of the neighbors. Chairperson Mollnow; I think you guys got 2 variances, one for lot reduction of less than 7,500 sq. ft. and one for side setback Mr. Sposito; yes, fire is my only concern, I’m not going to begrudge anyone doing what they want, I tried to build a nice looking building so nobody would be upset and I have off street parking as well, I’m just concerned about fire. Thank you. William McCarthy; I live at 116 Simmons Avenue, I’m a Council member for the 4th ward. Quite a few of the neighbors had contacted me and their concerns are all the same; parking, location of the house and they will be renting out both sides of the house, how many bedrooms will be in there, how many people will be living there and apparently they have spots for 2 cars for parking Joe Seman-Graves; we have updated plans with 2 2 car spots. William McCarthy; both neighbors have been there a long time and they know the constraints of that street and when it snow. The lot has been vacant for years and it did have a one family house on it. And if he does build, the neighbors in the rear have concerns over a couple of the large trees hanging over their house. Chairperson Mollnow; if there are no other public comments, we’ll close that section and open it up to the board. Members of the board, do you have any other comments? I can start, I believe this is a self-created issue and that they could build on the property within the current zoning code, particularly looking at 37 Mann Avenue, I am not personally a fan of this variance. Member DeChiaro; I agree, it is self-inflicted and I think it is an undesirable change to the neighborhood, I don’t see myself saying yes to this variance. Vice Chair Kusaywa; I agree Member Cotch; the applicant isn’t here, why are we even going to vote on it, we should table it, so he can answer questions. Member Dion; as for me, waiting to have the applicant answer questions will not sway my opinion. I don’t agree with this Member Cotch; but they could write change that would be reasonable, if they were here to answer all these questions. Someone from the public; what would be the change? Chairperson Mollnow; I’m sorry but public comment is closed. Mark I don’t disagree but I don’t see myself ever approving this. At 37 they were able to build a house within the zoning and to ask to build something that doesn’t meet the code and seek a variance when the place next door has the same lot restrictions, I don’t see any way I would be able to approve this just because they want to do something easier, quicker and cheaper by getting a variance. Joe, they did know about the meeting and they should be here right? Joe Seman-Graves; last I spoke to them, they were going to be here, I will leave it up to the board to choose whether to vote or not. Chairperson Mollnow; I’ll make a motion to deny the variance based on I feel it is a self- created issue and I don’t see why he should be allowed to build outside the area. 2nd by Member DeChiaro Joe Seman-Graves; is this for a vote on one or both variances Chairperson Mollnow; both. Motion carried unanimously to DENY both side set back variances for 33 Mann Avenue Cohoes, NY YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Mark Cotch X Anthony Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X Jacqueline DeChiaro X Chairperson Mollnow; with no other business to discuss I will adjourn the meeting at 6:55PM