Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes March 1, 2017 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gleason called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Prior to taking the first item on the agenda, Mr. Gleason explained to the members of the public present how the consideration of the applications would proceed. He stated that the applicants would have an opportunity to make their presentation to the Board, followed by any members of the public who would like to speak in favor of the application. Next any members of the public in opposition to the application would be invited to speak, followed by any discussion or questions the Board members wished to put forth prior to the vote. II. ATTENDANCE PRESENT: James Gleason, Chair; Fred Clark; David V. Connelly, Jr.; Brendan Keller, Helene Lester; Krystina Smith, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Jennifer Mills, Secretary EXCUSED: Mary D’Alessandro III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK None. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Beginning at the April 2017 meeting the Board Members will approve the Meeting Minutes from the prior month’s meeting after having had the opportunity to review the document and make any necessary corrections or amendments. V. NEW BUSINESS A. THE LEGERE GROUP LCC requests a Use Variance for 1473 Erie Boulevard to allow for a drive-thru establishment to be located in the C-4 Downtown Commercial District which is not permitted pursuant to Chapter 264 Schedule B. Ray Legere and Steve Cronin, real estate broker for The Legere Group, presented the application. Mr. Legere stated that he is a co-owner of the Legere Group, which has several real estate holdings nearby this site. He explained that he has been approached by several businesses who would like to locate on the site, which is currently used for parking for the nearby buildings the Legere Group owns. Mr. Legere stated that fast food restaurants such as McDonalds and Starbucks have expressed interest in the site, but that he feels that the bank would be the best use for the property as it would have the least negative impact on the immediate neighborhood. Mr. Legere stated that while a bank is allowed in the C-4 District a drive-thru window is not; he explained that all free-standing banks today require a drive-thru window be allowed in a prospective location. He noted that when he acquired the property it was zoned industrial, and he stated that when the re-zoning occurred in 2008 he was assured by the city administration that it would not have a negative impact on his property. Mr. Cronin stated that the downtown district has been changing rapidly – even more so now that the nearby Rivers Casino has opened. He explained that when the roundabout at Nott Street and Erie Boulevard was put in Mr. Legere lost eighteen parking spaces, thus leaving him with a smaller area available for development and lost revenue from the rental of those spaces. Mr. Cronin noted that the bank would be a relatively small – an approximately 1350 square foot, 26 by 52 foot building on a 2.5 acre lot. He stated that it would potentially have one drive-thru window and one ATM. He also noted that directly across Front Street is the C3 Waterfront Mixed Use District, where drive-thru windows are allowed. Mr. Cronin stated that while there has been much interest in development on the site from Dunkin Donuts, Starbucks, and other fast food establishments, Mr. Legere believes that the bank would be the best use for the property. He explained that the bank has stated that their traffic impact would be limited to fifteen to twenty cars per day, a much lower impact on the surrounding neighborhood than a fast food business would have. Mr. Cronin stated that he has tried to solicit interest from other retailers, but that it has been difficult to find one willing to locate on a lot of this size. He noted that any bank tenant would require that a drive-thru be allowed at any potential development site. Mr. Cronin explained that he believes that there are two potential realistic uses for the site – a small bank or having it remain as a parking lot. He stated that he and his clients believe that the bank would be a preferable alternative as the property would clearly be occupied, be clean and well-lit, and would have security cameras in operation around the clock. He noted that the bank building might shield the Front Street neighbors from some of the noise from the roundabout. Mr. Legere stated that his company had given a lot of consideration to the neighborhood when deciding to pursue the development for the bank. He explained that they believe that it would have a minimal impact on the area, and that the bank had expressed to him that they are most interested in the property as a marketing and advertising location, rather than a branch where they intend to draw many customers to the actual site. He noted that traffic would enter off Erie Boulevard and exit either by taking a right on Erie or by taking a right onto Front Street and then entering the roundabout. 2 Mr. Connelly asked Mr. Cronin if they could share the name of the bank interested. Mr. Cronin stated that they would if required but that they would rather not at this time. Mr. Connelly asked if they would state where the next closest branch of the bank is located. Mr. Cronin stated that it is not in Schenectady County. Mr. Legere again stated that when he purchased the property it was zoned industrial, and a drive-thru would have been allowed. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Legere if his company has been using the site as a parking lot. Mr. Legere stated that they have used the lot for parking for their nearby office space. Mr. Keller asked if they lease parking spaces to other tenants as well. Mr. Legere stated that with the casino development they have started to lease spaces to outside tenants, but that he had endured many years of spaces going unused and there being very low demand for them. Mr. Keller asked how long the site has been on the market. Mr. Cronin stated that the property was never formally put on the market as a site for potential development, but that once the casino opened interest ramped up and unsolicited offers started coming in. Mr. Keller asked about other conforming uses and if they have explored other options. Mr. Cronin stated that a bank is a conforming use; the drive-thru is not. Mr. Legere stated that by code he needs one parking space for every 3,000 square feet of office space, which he would still have with the bank development. He explained that with the bank at this location he would have more than the required spaces, but that some office tenants might demand more, and thus he would not like to lose additional spaces to a new tenant, as he might with a Dunkin Donuts or another more intensive use. Mr. Legere explained that he believes that this use would have the lowest impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Cronin stated that it is also difficult to find traditional retail tenants due to the site’s proximity to the roundabout. Mr. Keller stated that he would think that the heavy traffic would be good for a retail business seeking high visibility. Mr. Legere stated that due to the location being so close to the roundabout it is more difficult to access, making it less attractive to a business looking to draw many cars per day. Mr. Keller commented that he is not convinced that there has been sufficient effort invested into finding a conforming use. Mr. Gleason stated that he did not receive the overhead photo being referred to by the applicants and asked if they could clarify the traffic pattern on the site and where the building would be located. Mr. Cronin distributed copies of the photo and explained how cars would enter and exit the site and where the proposed building would be. Mr. Cronin stated that he has had difficulty finding traditional retail stores interested in the site, for the reasons discussed earlier. Mr. Keller stated that he believes that it is apparent that the legislative intent of not allowing drive- 3 thru windows in the downtown district is to encourage pedestrian traffic in the district. He stated that by allowing a drive-thru and not requiring the applicants to find a conforming use he believes the Board would be working against that intent. Mr. Legere commented that he is requesting a drive-thru for this one unique property which he does not think would set a precedent for the entire district. Mr. Keller stated that he believes that to the contrary it would set a clear precedent. Mr. Cronin stated that there are not are not a lot of other viable allowed uses that would give Mr. Legere the opportunity to generate more income from the property than using it for parking. He noted that the property in question is on the edge of the C-4 District and directly across Front Street from the C-3 District. He also commented that when Mr. Legere purchased the property it was in an industrial district with many more allowed uses and now his options have been narrowed, resulting in what they believe is a hardship. Ms. Lester stated that she is not convinced that it is a hardship situation since Mr. Legere stated that he has people coming to him with unsolicited offers to develop the property. Mr. Cronin stated that Mr. Legere lost eighteen parking spaces when the roundabout was constructed, at a loss of $25 per space per month, and that he is unable to maximize the potential of the property because of the rezoning – thus resulting in a hardship. Ms. Lester asked if the bank in Mohawk Harbor will have a drive-thru window. Mr. Cronin replied that it will. Mr. Clark commented that drive thru windows are prohibited in the C-4 District for a reason, and that he does not believe that the applicants have shown that this property should be an exception. Mr. Cronin stated that he believes that this site is very different from the heart of downtown. He stated that other drive-thru establishments, such as a Dunkin Donuts or Starbucks, might have an undesirable effect on the neighborhood, with increased traffic, long lines of cars stacking, and increased noise and loitering, but that the bank would have much less of an impact. He stated that the portion of the zoning code describing a drive thru seems to imply a much greater impact than would be the case here. Mr. Legere read aloud the portion of the code describing a drive-thru. Mr. Keller stated that he believes that the code exactly addresses the type of development being proposed in this situation. He explained that Mr. Legere and Mr. Cronin had stated that the change in the neighborhood and the increased traffic had in fact benefitted Mr. Legere’s business. He explained that the Board has no desire to limit how much money can be made from the property, but that Mr. Legere has not proven that he cannot realize a reasonable return without a variance. Mr. Legere stated that he had received an offer from a pawn shop that would be willing to pay a lot of money to locate at this site, but that he is not interested in bringing that kind of business to the neighborhood. Mr. Keller stated that he understands what Mr. Legere is 4 saying and commends him for his consideration of what is best for the neighborhood, but that it has nothing to do with him proving a hardship, which is required for the Board to justify granting a variance. Mr. Clark stated that the Board had denied another variance for a drive-thru very near this property for the same reason. Mr. Cronin stated that Mr. Legere runs his business with a strong sense of responsibility to the residents of Schenectady and what is best for the City and that he gave up a portion of his property for the roundabout. He noted that having a bank in this location would have a very low impact on the neighborhood, and that it has been difficult to find potential businesses that would be a better fit. Ms. Lester stated that clearly there have been other offers, such as a pawn shop, which proves interest from a business that would not require a drive-thru. Mr. Cronin stated that he believes this property to be unique and that it why the Board exists; to consider unique situations on a case-by-case basis. He noted that when Mr. Legere purchased the property it was zoned Industrial, and thus had many more potential uses allowed. Mr. Gleason asked Mr. Legere and Mr. Cronin if they had anything more to present. They stated that they did not. Mr. Gleason next opened the floor for public comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR Tom O’Connor of the Capital Region Chamber spoke in favor of the application. He stated that one of the main goals of the Chamber is to promote tourism in the area, which the bank would support by offering banking services to visitors. He added that if the legislative intent of prohibiting drive-thru windows is to promote pedestrian use of the area, this should not directly pertain to this site where pedestrian traffic has been specifically discouraged. Mr. O‘Connor noted that the Chamber will be moving their offices from State Street to one of the office buildings adjacent to the site, and that Chamber employees as well as other office workers in the area would welcome a bank for their use. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION Mary Ann Ruscitto, resident of 205 Front Street, spoke in opposition to the application. She explained that she has great respect for Mr. Legere and that he has been a good neighbor and takes care of his properties, but that the increased traffic from a bank with a drive-thru on the site would be detrimental to the neighborhood. She noted that before consideration is given to incoming tourists it should be given to the residents, many of whom have lived in the area for a very long time. Mr. Keller asked Ms. Ruscitto how the traffic would affect the Front Street neighborhood, if cars will be encouraged to exit right onto Front Street to go through the roundabout. Ms. Ruscitto replied that inevitably cars will turn left and cut through the neighborhood to avoid the heavy traffic at the roundabout and that section of Erie Boulevard. 5 She noted that even before the roundabout and the development of Mohawk Harbor drivers would go down Front Street and through the Stockade to access 890. Carmella Ruscitto, resident of 205 Front Street and President of the East Front Street Neighborhood Association, also spoke in opposition to the application. She echoed her sister Mary Ann’s concerns, stating that any business at the site would bring additional traffic which would negatively impact the neighborhood. Chris Morris of 305 Front Street spoke in opposition to the application. She stated that she does not believe that the neighborhood can handle any additional traffic, and echoed Mary Ann Ruscitto’s comments that cars exiting the bank would likely cut through the neighborhood to avoid entering traffic on Erie Boulevard. She gave an example of waiting in traffic at one of the side streets behind a driver attempting to make a left out onto Erie, stating that the driver eventually gave up and turned right. Mr. Keller asked Ms. Morris if she has any objections specific to the drive-thru. Ms. Morris stated that if a business must go on the site she believes that a bank would have the least negative impact, but that she would prefer to see no additional traffic drawn to the site. Seeing no further members of the public wishing to speak Mr. Gleason closed the public comment portion of the meeting. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Gleason noted that although it might not be clear exactly why the City chose not to allow drive-thru establishments in the C-4 district, they are not allowed and granting a variance would set a precedent. He stated that the Board had already denied a variance for a drive-thru on a neighboring property, and thus if they were to support this variance they would need to make a very strong argument as to why the two cases differ. Mr. Keller stated that the cases are very similar, and thus granting a variance in this case could be interpreted as going against a precedent already set. Mr. Gleason agreed. Mr. Connelly stated that some people foresaw that the level of traffic generated by the casino and other development at Mohawk Harbor could be a potential problem and that the situation is one that is new and still developing. He stated that while he always tries to consider applications from a pro- business perspective, he feels that this area is very much in flux right now and the applicants have a burden to show how not having a variance would be a hardship, which in his opinion they have not done. In addition, Mr. Connelly explained that he feels that the arguments made have not been strong enough to override the concerns of the neighbors and the traffic issues that they are facing. 6  Mr. Keller stated that he questioned the validity of Mr. O’Connor’s comment that a bank drawing fifteen cars a day would be promoting tourism in the area. Counselor Smith noted that City Planner Primiano had asked her to convey to the board that tabling the application and asking for a traffic study could be an option if they feel that the outcome of the study could impact their decision. Mr. Gleason stated that he does not think that a traffic study would be necessary. The other board members concurred. Mr. Keller stated that if the application were to be tabled the onus would still be on the applicant to prove his case for hardship. Mr. Gleason called for a vote. DENIAL OF USE VARIANCE Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Clark, to deny the application based on the following findings of fact: 1. The applicant can realize a reasonable return with the allowed uses. 2. The alleged hardship relating to the property is not unique, and does apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. 3. The requested use variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 4. The alleged hardship has been self-created. Motion carried unanimously. B. UPSTATE AUTO REPAIRS requests Area Variances for a sign at 815 Eastern Avenue to allow for a freestanding sign that is not set back 20 feet from the intersection of the curb lines forming such corner pursuant to Chapter 264-34 and to allow for a sign that is 10 feet tall where 7 feet tall is permitted pursuant to Chapter 264 Schedule I. The applicant failed to appear at the meeting and the application was not considered. VI. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Keller, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. 7