Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes April 5, 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 further 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.; Mary D’Alessandro; Brendan Keller, Helene Lester; Krystina Smith, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Jennifer Mills, Secretary III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK None. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Beginning at the May 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. GUY D. SEMENTELLI requests an Area Variance to construct a garage at 1726 Union Street to allow for a 6-inch setback where 3-feet are required pursuant to Chapter 264-29 D (2)(b). Guy Sementelli presented the application. Mr. Sementelli stated that he is seeking an area variance to complete the construction of a three-car garage behind his rental property on Union Street. He explained that he was unaware that he was not allowed to rebuild the garage on the previous footprint, and he apologized for beginning the project without obtaining the required variance. Mr. Sementelli stated that the proposed garage is a three-stall structure that is approximately thirty feet high. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Sementelli if the previous garage was there when he purchased the property. Mr. Sementelli explained that it was not; it was taken down a few years prior to his ownership of the property. Mr. Gleason asked if the new garage would be a similar height to the neighbors’ garages. Mr. Sementelli stated that it would be slightly higher, because it would have a pitched roof whereas those garages have flat roofs which pitch back towards the rear. He stated that the former garage on the site also had a flat roof, which he explained can be a problem because all the rain run-off is directed towards the back of the garage and onto the back-neighbor’s property. He noted that the peaked roof would contain run-off to his own property. Mr. Connelly asked if the new garage is pre-fabricated. Mr. Sementelli responded that it is, and is a steel construction which would greatly reduce any fire hazard. Mr. Keller asked if the previous garage had been in the same location and if it was in compliance. Counselor Smith explained that it had been in this same location but had been built prior to the zoning change and thus had been a pre-existing condition. Mr. Sementelli noted that all the garages in the area are very close to the rear property lines. Mr. Sementelli stated that the garage would create a buffer for the back neighbor and eliminate the area that collects litter at the rear fence line. Mr. Keller asked how far along construction is on the garage. Mr. Sementelli stated that it is about 80% complete. Mr. Keller asked if a three-foot setback would be realistic for this property if he had to start construction from scratch. Mr. Sementelli stated that the size and footprint of the garage would have to be different for it to fit on the lot with the three-foot setback. Mr. Keller asked if Mr. Sementelli was stating that it would be impossible to fit this current garage with a three-foot setback. Mr. Sementelli confirmed that this was the case. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR The Rev. Alan Kinney spoke in favor of the proposal. He stated that he knows Mr. Sementelli to be an exemplary member of the community with extremely high morals and values, as well as a good neighbor. He added that he is certain that Mr. Sementelli would not have begun construction if he had known that he needed a variance. He noted that he believes that the garage will not cause any problems if it is located where the previous garage had been, and that the new design with the peaked roof will be better for rain and snow run-off. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. Seeing no further members of the public wishing to speak Mr. Gleason closed the public comment portion of the meeting. CONTINUED DISCUSSION 2  Mr. Gleason stated that it did not appear that the garage would have any adverse effect on the surrounding properties, and that the new design would be an improvement. The board members concurred. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro, to approve the area variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. No undesirable change will be produced in the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another method. 3. The variance is not substantial. 4. There will not be an adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty is not 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 Section 264-61 Schedule I. Barde Ramdas presented the application. Mr. Ramdas stated that he had recently bought the business and that although there is a sign on the building he would like to add a free-standing sign on the property, because the building is setback significantly from the street and is difficult to see. Counselor Smith noted that on this lot there is not room to place a sign with the required twenty-foot setback, which is why the applicant is seeking permission for only seventeen feet. Ms. D’Alessandro asked Mr. Ramdas why he is seeking a higher sign. Mr. Ramdas replied that he feels that a seven-foot sign would be in the sightline of drivers. Mr. Connelly questioned the need for an additional sign, stating that most people who are coming to the business will be looking for it. Mr. Ramdas stated that he has had several customers tell him that if they had not put the address into their GPS they would have been unable to locate the property. There was continued discussion of where the proposed sign would be located and it was concluded that the board members would need to see a scale drawing of the site showing the proposed sign location before they could make any decision regarding the application. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR 3  Vijaikumar Seadath, partner in the business, spoke in favor of the application stating that the additional signage is necessary to aide in customers locating the business. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. MOTION TO TABLE Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, to table the application pending submittal of additional information including a scale drawing of the property showing the proposed location of the sign as well as a professional drawing of the proposed sign with dimensions and materials indicated. Motion carried unanimously. C. PAUL FALLATI requests Area Variances for a sign at 2 Rush Street to allow for a freestanding sign with a height of 9’2” where a maximum of 7 feet is allowed and to allow the sign to be a total of 48 square feet where 25 square feet is allowed pursuant to Section 264-61 Schedule I. Paul Fallati of the Galesi Group presented the application. Mr. Fallati explained that construction will soon begin on a 4200-square foot building at the corner of the Erie Boulevard roundabout in Mohawk Harbor. He stated that the building will house a Dunkin Donuts and a bank. Mr. Fallati explained that he has been working with Principal Planner Christine Primiano to design a sign that can be seen from various directions on the roundabout, as the Dunkin Donuts is an impulse business that requires potential customers to see signage and make a quick decision whether or not to enter. He stated that after trying several different mock-up sizes and designs on the site they had come up with a V-shaped design with a 3 by 8- foot faceplate for both tenants. He noted that Dunkin Donuts would prefer a larger sign, but that the interested parties had compromised on this size, which will be clearly visible without being out of scale with the surroundings. Mr. Keller asked if the V-shape was chosen because of the specific traffic pattern at the roundabout. Mr. Fallati responded that it was. He stated that they had placed a mock-up of the sign on the site and it was visible without obstructing any views or sightlines of drivers. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR Carlos Tekeira, owner of the Dunkin Donuts franchise, spoke in favor of the proposal. He stated that this sign is smaller than what Dunkin Donuts typically uses, but that he feels that it would be a suitable compromise. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION 4  None. Seeing no further members of the public wishing to speak Mr. Gleason closed the public comment portion of the meeting. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Connelly stated that Ms. Primiano did a good job in working with the applicant to find a design to fit the situation. He added that initially he had questioned the height of the sign but now can see how it is necessary in this location. Mr. Keller stated that his only hesitation would be with setting a precedent but that he too agrees that this location is unique and a sign of this size and design is reasonable. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro, to approve the area variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. No undesirable change will be produced in the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another method. 3. The variance is not substantial. 4. There will not be an adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created. Motion carried unanimously. VI. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. 5