Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes June 7, 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; David V. Connelly, Jr.; Mary D’Alessandro- Gilmore; Brendan Keller, Helene Lester; Avi Epstein, Zoning Officer; Krystina Smith, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Jennifer Mills, Secretary EXCUSED: Fred Clark III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK None. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES None. V. NEW BUSINESS A. STEWART’S SHOP CORPORATION requests Area Variances for 100 South Brandywine Avenue to allow for the construction of a convenience store with an 8-foot rear yard setback from an adjacent residential property where at 30-foot setback is required pursuant to Chapter 264-37 and a 59-foot front setback where a 10-foot maximum is allowed pursuant to Chapter 264 Schedule C. Ryan Rubado, designer and construction manager for Stewart’s Shop Corporation, presented the application. Mr. Rubado explained that Stewart’s had previously planned to expand the existing shop on this site but eventually decided that it would be more economical and efficient to raze the current store and build a new one. He briefly reviewed the site plan and explained that they had tried various designs that would have required a lesser or no variance but none of these designs proved workable. He noted that Stewart’s does not require customers to pre- pay for gas and thus it is their policy to have the gas islands in front of the store where they can be easily observed by employees. Mr. Keller asked when Stewart’s acquired the property. Mr. Rubado stated that the current shop has been there at least since the 1970’s, and that they acquired the adjoining parcel a few years ago. He stated that the current layout of the business is existing non-conforming with a 7-foot rear setback and a 72-foot front setback. Mr. Connelly asked if the curb cuts and sidewalks will be brought into compliance if the new plan is approved and constructed. Mr. Rubado stated that they will be. Mr. Keller stated that the application form seems to be filled out incorrectly, as it appears to be arguing against the variance. Counselor Smith noted that Mr. Rubado did not complete the application and it appears that whoever did so misunderstood the questions. She stated that Mr. Rubado should be given an opportunity to respond and explain why the variance would not be substantial or self-created. Mr. Rubado stated that he does not believe that the variance is substantial because similar conditions have existed for over forty years, and the new design will improve the safety and traffic flow on the lot. He explained that it is not self-created because the store existed before the zoning code was changed, and Stewart’s is simply trying to update and improve the site that they have owned and operated for many years. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR Scott Cietek spoke on behalf of Metroplex Development Authority. Mr. Cietek stated that Stewart’s is a well-known corporation and they have a reputation for taking care of their properties and being thoughtful of the surrounding communities. He added that this is a quirky site which will be much improved and made safer by the new design. 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 Mr. Gleason stated that be believed that the case had been made for the requested variances. Mr. Connelly agreed, stating that the new design will be a big improvement and will increase safety on the property and in the surrounding area. Mr. Keller noted that the requested setbacks will be no more severe than the existing condition, and the site will be tremendously improved. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL 2  Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to approve the area variances 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. PAUL FALLATI requests Area Variances for 433 State Street to allow for a wall and projecting sign which exceeds the maximum number of allowed signs and maximum sign area (square feet) for buildings in the C-4 Downtown Mixed Use District pursuant to Chapter 264 Schedule I. Carl Wheeler of AJ Signs presented the application. Mr. Wheeler explained that the applicant is requesting a variance for two signs, one on the building which will be visible to pedestrians and across the street, and another projecting blade sign which will be more visible to vehicular traffic. He stated that NBT Bank, which is next door to the property, has both a blade sign and a sign on the front of the bank. Mr. Gleason stated that the NBT signs had been the center of significant discussion by the board. Mr. Connelly stated that many of the surrounding businesses have blade signs and lettering in the windows, which does not count toward the overall signage amount. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR Scott Cietek of Metroplex Development Authority, spoke in favor of the proposal. He stated that if the variance is not granted this would be the only first-floor tenant in the building without a blade sign and a storefront sign. He added that this storefront has been vacant for quite some time and he believes that the two signs are necessary for maximum visibility for the business. Mr. Keller asked why a blade sign would not sufficient, as pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles passing by could both see a blade sign. Mr. Cietek responded that a blade sign is not visible from across the street at Proctor’s. Mr. Keller asked is Mr. Cietek believes that every business should be allowed a building sign and a projecting sign. Mr. Cietek replied that it is not his place to write the City Code but that he believes that it is reasonable, in this block, which has become somewhat known for the blade signs. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. 3  Seeing no further members of the public wishing to speak Mr. Gleason closed the public comment portion of the meeting. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Counselor Smith noted that she had reviewed the NBT Bank decision from December 2014. She stated that when NBT came before the board they had a pre-existing panel sign and requested a variance for the projecting blade sign. The Board Members briefly discussed signage in the area and which businesses have two signs. Mr. Keller stated that he is not opposed to additional signage but that it is the Board’s obligation to enforce the City zoning regulations, which allow one sign per business unless the business is located on a corner. Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore asked Mr. Wheeler if both signs will be lit. Mr. Wheeler stated that only the blade sign will be lit. Mr. Keller stated that the code is clear as to what is allowed, and if the two signs are approved it will set a precedent. Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore stated that she is undecided and believes that if the panel sign is unlit it is not that different from a window sign. Mr. Gleason stated many of the existing businesses have two signs. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, seconded by Ms. Lester, to approve the area variances 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. And with the following condition: 1. The sign attached to the building will not be lit. Motion carried, with Mr. Gleason, Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, and Ms. Lester in favor and Mr. Connelly and Mr. Keller opposed. C. GE Power requests Area Variances for 1 River Road to allow for the construction of 2 building annexes in a floodplain at 226 feet Above Mean Sea-Level which is 7 feet below the required Design Flood Elevation of 231 feet per flood plain regulations and pursuant to Chapter 157-16. Prior to the beginning of the presentation, Counselor Smith noted that technically GE is not seeking an area variance but a permit for building in a flood plain, as explained in the City Code Chapter 157 – Flood Hazard Control. Mr. Keller asked for further explanation. Counselor Smith stated 4 that to participate in the Flood Plain Insurance Program the City must maintain certain regulations and ensure compliance. Because the proposed new construction is lower than allowed a permit, in the form of a variance, is needed. Mark Weeks of O’Brien and Gere Engineers and Keith Leackfeldt, Facilities Manager of Building 66 for GE Power, presented the application. The applicants briefly reviewed the site plan and proposed building plans. Mr. Weeks explained that GE is proposing to construct 2 small annexes to the building, which is would be at the same level as the rest of the building. He stated that the entire campus is built at this level, or within a few feet of it, and any new construction would require the same approval. He explained that the annexes will be built above code, with more than the required concrete footings, and will be constructed of steel and concrete. Mr. Weeks explained that during the design process they had tried to figure out a way to build at the required level, but that the difference in elevation would leave the annexes unsuitable for the desired use. Mr. Gleason asked if the campus had experienced significant flooding in the past. Mr. Leackfeldt stated that during Hurricane Irene in 2011 there was some flooding on the campus but none in Building 66. Mr. Gleason asked what the building is used for. Mr. Leackfeldt stated that it is used for clean energy manufacturing. The applicants and Board Members briefly discussed Chapter 157-16 Item D, which reviews technical evaluations, relevant factors, and standards specified in other sections of the Chapter. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR Scott Cietek of Metroplex Development Authority spoke in favor of the proposal, noting that GE has an excellent reputation and that he is certain that they will meet the highest standards of construction. 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 Mr. Gleason stated that he supports granting the permit and is glad that all involved parties seriously take the situation. The other Board Members agreed. Mr. Connelly asked Counselor Smith if approving the permit would have any negative impact on the City. Counselor Smith stated that it will not. 5  AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to approve the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed new construction is not in a designated floodway. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. 3. The applicant has shown good and sufficient cause by successfully addressing the considerations stated in Chapter 157-16 D. 4. Failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant. 5. The variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety or extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. Motion carried unanimously. VI. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. 6