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, OCTOBER 25, 2023 AT 6:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Greg Mollnow, Chairperson Mr. Anthony Kusaywa, Vice Chair Mr. Mark Cotch Ms. Carolyn Dion MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Jacqueline DeChiaro ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Seman-Graves, Planner Sharon Butler, Administrative Assistant Tess Drauschak, Assistant Planner Chairperson Mollnow called the meeting to order at 6:30PM. Roll Call taken; Member DeChiaro was absent CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 27, 2023 MEETING Chairperson Mollnow; next order of business is the consideration of the September 2023 meeting minutes. Vice Chair Kusaywa; made the motion to approve the minutes as printed 2nd by Member Cotch All in favor, motion carried unanimously YES NO ABSTAIN Greg Mollnow X Mark Cotch X Anthony Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X Jacqueline DeChiaro ABSENT CONSIDERATION OF AN AREA VARIANCE AT 25 JAMES STREET Chairperson Mollnow; next on the agenda is the consideration of an area variance at 25 James Street. The applicant is proposing a new 10 foot by 16 foot shed in the backyard of the property at 25 James Street that is in the R-2 residential zoning district. Accessory buildings in the R-2 residential zoning district require a 10-foot side setback, the applicant is proposing to place the shed with a 6-foot side setback, therefore requesting 4 feet of relief. 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 of impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 6. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Chairperson Mollnow invited the applicant Mr. Serfilippi to approach the board and give more details about the project. Mr. William Serfilippi approached and told the board he wanted to put up another shed because the one he has is full, and he wants to have another shed for the deck furniture. Chairperson Mollnow; did you say you have one on your property now? Is that shed to old or…. Mr. Serfilippi; no that one is still good, but it is full Chairperson Mollnow; ok Mr. Serfilippi; I have the lawnmower and other things in there. Chairperson Mollnow; members of the board any questions? At this time I will open it up to public comment. Are there any public comments on this variance? Chairperson Mollnow asked if any public comments were sent in Tess read a comment from Member DeChiaro stating that it appears the neighbors are ok with the project and it is not impeding the neighbors house or sight lines so she has no issues with the variance. Chairperson Mollnow; at this time I will close the public comment period. Members of the board I’ll open it up for discussion. Being no comments or concerns, motion was made by Vice Chair Kusaywa to approve the variance 2nd by Member Dion motion carried unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Chairperson Mollnow X Mark Cotch X Vice Chair Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X Jacqueline DeChiaro ABSENT CONSIDERATION OF AREA VARIANCE AT 25 RUDOLPH COURT Chairperson Mollnow next on the agenda is an area variance for the construction of a new 12’ x 22’ front deck on the property at 25 Rudolph Court in the R-1 residential zoning district. The applicant requests the follow area variance; Single family dwelling in the R-1 residential zoning district require a 30-foot front setback, the applicant is proposing to build the deck with only a 26- foot front setback, 4 feet of relief is requested. As previously stated; The appeal under consideration is that of 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:  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 of impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 6. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created Chairperson Mollnow invited the applicant Ms. Ryan to approach the board, and give some details regarding the project. Ms. Alecia Ryan approached; we want to put a front deck onto our house, right now there is currently concrete stairs that are not good looking, they are crumbling and falling apart. Right now there is a walkway, a concrete walkway that is starting to break up so I wanted to bring it further into the driveway. Chairperson Mollnow members of the board any questions? Vice Chair Kusaywa; how close to the road is it? Ms. Ryan; it is about 26 feet to my line and then the road. I’m coming out 12 feet from the house and that includes the stairs. Chairperson Mollnow; Joe/Tess does the entire deck meet the setback or is it just front? Tess just the front of the deck Chairperson Mollnow ok. To the applicant; would you be opposed to shortening the deck up if the variance wasn’t approved or do you need that to make the deck work? Ms. Ryan well if the stairs are going to be…because what I’m doing is it is going to be one level then tiered steps all the way around, so without having, I have 2 to 3 feet that I’m losing from that space. So in order for me to come down, I have to come down 6 feet, it seems pointless unless I can bring it out 8 or 10 feet. Chairperson Mollnow; ok. Members of the board any other questions? At this time I’ll open it up to the floor for public comments, are there any public comments? Being none he asked if comments were sent in—none. Public comment period was closed and opened to the board members for any questions or comments. Member Cotch; this one is odd we don’t usually get decks on the front of houses. So this is kind of different. Chairperson Mollnow; I am looking for the layout on the last page, it does make sense with the layout of the property. Would anyone like to make a motion? Member Cotch made a motion to accept this variance 2nd by Vice Chair Kusaywa motion carried unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN Chairperson Mollnow X Mark Cotch X Vice Chair Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X Jacqueline DeChiaro ABSENT CONSIDERATION OF AN AREA VARIANCE AT 2 BELL AVENUE Chairperson Mollnow; next on the agenda is an area variance for 2 Bell Avenue. The applicant has submitted an Area Variance application seeking to bring into compliance an already built 12’ by 16’ rear deck which does not comply with setback requirements. Single family dwellings in the R-1 residential zoning district require a side setback of 12 feet. The rear deck was built with a southerly side setback of only 6.5 feet requiring a 5.5-foot variance is requested. Again the appeal under consideration is that of 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: 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 of impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 6. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Chairperson Mollnow asked Ms. Fox to approach the board and explain the project. Ms. Kelly Fox; we were going to add deck boards, we had an 8 x 8 deck so we decided to put the other 16 feet out to fit our furniture. She explained that there isn’t 12 feet between the properties there is only 6 feet apart from property lines. We didn’t cut it because it is the treks decking and it is $40 a board. Chairperson Mollnow; members of the board any questions? I just want to make it clear that if this variance is granted you are still going to have to get a building permit and go through the process of building inspections which are required. So the process is if this is approved you will then have to go through the process of the building permit and the building inspector will have to sign off on it and that may require re-work, so this meeting and if approval is granted would not satisfy everything, there are still more steps after this. I just want to make that clear. My only question is other than cutting the boards down is the only reason the deck is this size because of the length the boards came in. Ms. Fox yes Chairperson Mollnow; could you make the deck work if it was smaller, if it was cut back the 5 ½ feet? Ms. Fox; yes Chairperson Mollnow; members of the board any other questions? This time we’ll open it up to public comments. Aleshia Harrison 10 Alder Avenue stated that she is ok with the variance as long as the property line stays the same if it doesn’t change anything else. Chairperson Mollnow; it wouldn’t change the property lines, it is just allowing this deck to be built within the 12-foot setback. If any other project came before the board, if she wanted to put in a shed or something she would still have to come to get that approved, this is just for that project, the deck. Ms. Harrison; ok Chairperson Mollnow any other public comments for this? Was anything sent in? With no other comments, public comment was closed. Members of the board I will open it for discussion. Vice Chair Kusaywa; I would like to see what code has to say. Chairperson Mollnow; if approved it would still have to go to code Joe; hypothetically according to NYS Building Code they could still rebuild it and that approval would still stand but they would have to build it according to code standards. So to your concern that shouldn’t make a difference, if code goes out and they see something they don’t like, you are only approving the setback and not the structure. Chairperson Mollnow; I don’t see any issue with it if the neighbor doesn’t mind it, I don’t know if anyone else has an issue with it. Would anyone like to make a motion? Motion to accept made by Member Dion 2nd by Chair Mollnow YES NO ABSTAIN Chairperson Mollnow X Mark Cotch X Vice Chair Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X Jacqueline DeChiaro ABSENT Chairperson Mollnow; your variance has been approved you will be notified of next steps, like I said there are other things you need to do. CONSIDERATION OF THREE AREA VARIANCES FOR 49 JOHNSTON AVENUE Chairperson Mollnow; ok moving on to the next application, this is at 49 Johnston Avenue. The applicant has submitted an area variance seeking three variances from the Cohoes City Code for the purpose of placing a donated sign at the corner of Garner and Johnston Avenue. The applicant requests the following area variances; the first one is a request for 50 square feet of relief from the 16 square foot freestanding sign area limit to place the 66 square foot sign. Next is a request of 2 variances from Section 285-95 of Cohoes City Code which states that signs customarily incidental to places of worship, libraries, museums, social clubs or societies, which signs or bulletin boards are erected or displayed not closer than 10 feet to any property line. The new sign is proposed to be placed with a 0-foot setback to the south and southeasterly property lines, therefor a relief of 10 feet on both sides is requested. Again the appeal under consideration is that of 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: 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 of impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 6. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Chairperson Mollnow asked the applicant Mr. Williams to approach the board and give an explanation of the project. Mr. Ben Williams and Mr. Eric Murphy introduced themselves. Chairperson Mollnow asked the applicants to explain their project. Mr. Williams; the sign was generously gifted to us, without our knowledge to the City zoning laws. The sign is constructed in heavy duty steel frame to withstand wind. We are just looking to replace our existing sign and the digital sign will allow us to display all community outreach programs and community support things that we have going on at the center and the church. Mr. Murphy; we are looking to put it in the spot of the current sign, it already has power running to the location. We did assess whether we can move it back further but it would then cut into the parking lot. Chairperson Mollnow; members of the board any questions for the applicants. Tess read a comment from Member DeChiaro which asked if the sign is going to be on the inside or outside of the fence? Mr. Murphy; the plan is to alter the fence, the fence would run behind it. We are looking to create more visibility there. Currently the arrangement of the fence and the sign behind the fence would be a visual amenity to the current sign. Chairperson Mollnow; members of the board any comments or questions? Member Cotch; I have a question. I live one block up from there, my only concern is there used to be a stop light at that intersection and now it is just a stop sign. My concern is people are going to be looking at the sign when they go through the intersection and it might be a distraction for people. Is it going to be a moving sign that you will have to read things? Mr. Williams; it’ll be a static message, we won’t put any moving animation or anything, it will be static messages and kind of like a slide show. I anticipate people will get used to it. Chairperson Mollnow; would you say it is like that sign over by the Cohoes Middle School that it has static messages and public announcements? Mr. Williams yes Joe Seman-Graves; our traffic commission didn’t have any issues, stating that the sign meets the City’s code for the required 35’ corner triangle, and that sight distance shouldn’t be a problem. And the Historic board still has to review it. We did have the chair of the board about a year ago go to the sight to get a visual on it, because it is in the historic district, I think that the proposal we see has addressed any issues with the brick base added to it. It still has to be reviewed by the historic board, but I think this meets what they originally requested. Chairperson Mollnow; Joe I have one questions, their property line doesn’t extend to the road, the sidewalk is not considered their property? Joe; that is the right of way. I think they have a pretty good description in the site plan. That ROW give or take 2 feet, that is a GIS overlay so it might skewed slightly but it is pretty representative of the property lines. Chairperson Mollnow; so there is a setback from the road, it just not from the property line? Joe; right. Chairperson Mollnow; ok members of the board any other questions or comments? It was opened to public comments. Joan Kennedy lives next to the church. I am opposed to the request before the zoning board. In essence it is a commercialization of the existing historic residential walkable neighborhood. The request to put the sign in, I didn’t realize it was going to be digital, I think is completely out of characterization of the neighborhood. There are other businesses there, the dance school, none of them have this kind of in-your-face sign, I appreciate that they are saying it is a static slide show. I have lived there for 15 years, and there have been several accidents at that corner and then on top of that, I drove over from Johnston Avenue tonight you can’t see through the existing sign you have to go all the way up to the intersection to get a good view. And I think that the historic flavor of that residential walkable neighborhood needs to be preserved and I think that this sign could be revamped into something that can be much more consistent with that. I think the existing sign is already in your face, and you know I am just opposed to it. I watched pastors go in and out, they took the stained-glass windows out of the church a few years ago and then boarded it up, this neighborhood is a community there is a sense of place, people walk, we recognize each other, people walk their dogs, we are getting good people moving into the area, the drug people are moving out and I just think that we should be working on enhancing and keep away from the commercialization of that. This is a way to make it better, and I think commercializing it will be a detriment. Chairperson Mollnow; I would like to say that this meeting is mostly for the size of the sign and the location of the sign, if you have comments on what the sign looks like, if this variance was to be approved, definitely go to the historic board meeting on the 31st. Ms. Kennedy; this is the first I heard it was a digital sign, it is 66 square feet, it is huge and I just think it is inappropriate for a residential area. Chairperson Mollnow; thank you for your comments. Are there any other public comments, were any sent in? Tess read the comment from Member DeChiaro stating the she doesn’t believe that the placement of the digital sign will cause undue harm to the neighbors (light going into their windows) If there are no complaints from neighbors I am ok with this project. Chairperson Mollnow; ok so with that, if there are no other public comments we will close public comment and open it up to comments or questions from the board. Member Cotch; I have one more question, is the sign going to be on 24 hours? Mr. Williams; there is no need for it to be on 24 hours, it will go off at 10:00, it is only beneficial when there is traffic in the area. Member Dion; I personally don’t have an issue with it. Chairperson Mollnow; I think we are pretty familiar with this area as there has been a few variances in this area over the last 2 years, with most of the members that are on the board now. Do we have a size of the existing sign? Mr. Murphy; it’s smaller but it is higher, so it can be above the existing fence Chairperson Mollnow; my only concern is the historic nature but if it is going in front of the historic board, I’m glad to hear that. Being it is at the fence line, I don’t see a huge issue with the site line I don’t drive it every day, and traffic commission has no issue with it correct? Joe; it meets the requirements for the intersection Chairperson Mollnow; ok Member Cotch; I make a motion that we accept the application 2nd by Member Dion Sharon; that is for all the variances correct? Member Cotch yes. Motion carried unanimously—Chairperson Mollnow stating that as long as the Historic Board weighs in on the look of it. YES NO ABSTAIN Chairperson Mollnow X Mark Cotch X Vice Chair Kusaywa X Carolyn Dion X Jacqueline DeChiaro ABSENT Chairperson Mollnow; the variance for the sign is approved, but it still will have to pass through the Historic Board and then building permit. Sharon to board; Reminder that if we have a November meeting it will be on November 15 th due to Thanksgiving. With no other business to discuss Chairperson Mollnow adjourned the meeting 2nd by Vice Chair Kusaywa. Meeting adjourned at 7:00PM Respectfully, Sharon Butler Secretary