Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes August 2, 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.; Brendan Keller, Helene Lester; Avi Epstein, Zoning Officer; Krystina Smith, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Jennifer Mills, Secretary EXCUSED: Mary D’Alessandro-Gilmore III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK None. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES None. V. NEW BUSINESS A. 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. Thomas Wheeler of AJ Signs presented the application. Counselor Krystina Smith explained that the proposal had been presented at the June 2017 meeting but that no action had been taken because the required four votes to grant the variance had not been cast. Mr. Wheeler stated that most businesses downtown have a blade sign, which captures both vehicular and pedestrian viewers, but that in this case the business is directly across State Street from Proctor’s Theater, from which they hope to draw a lot of impulse business, and they believe that they need the wall sign to attract the patrons directly across the street. Mr. Keller asked why Mr. Wheeler believes that this business should have two signs when all other businesses in the area have one. Mr. Wheeler stated that this is generally an impulse business and Proctor’s is one of their main target audiences. Mr. Connelly asked Mr. Wheeler if the wall sign was already up last time he came before the BZA in June. Mr. Wheeler stated that it was not and that it had just been put up recently. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. Seeing no 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 most businesses in the area have two signs. Mr. Clark stated that they do not, but rather they have a blade sign and lettering in the window, which is not counted as the same kind of signage. Counselor Smith stated that Subway and NBT Bank had been given variances, but otherwise businesses only have one sign each. Mr. Keller stated that he believes that allowing two signs in this case would set a precedent, and that a sufficient argument had not been made that this site is unique. Mr. Connelly agreed, and added that he is bothered by the fact that the applicant went ahead an installed the wall sign, before any action had been taken by the Board. Mr. Gleason stated that his opinion has changed since he understood that no other businesses, with the two exceptions, have two signs. AREA VARIANCE DENIAL Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to deny the area variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. Undesirable change will be produced in the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by another method. 3. The variance is substantial. 4. There will be an adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Motion carried unanimously. 2 B. ANDREW P. ASKEW requests an Area Variance for 1916 Broadway to allow for 21 cars to be placed on the lot which exceeds the number allowed pursuant to Chapter 264-44 Schedule F. Andrew Askew and Ella-Mae Ebert presented the application. Ms. Ebert explained that approximately two and a half years ago Mr. Askew, who had previously owned the property and had held a mortgage on it, was forced to take back the property when the mortgage defaulted. She stated that he had previously retired from his business, Hungry Hill Auto Sales, but that he decided to re-open at this site and build the business for his grandson to eventually take over. Ms. Ebert explained that they had received a notice of violation stating that they are only allowed to have 12 cars on the lot at one time. She reviewed information included in the application that explained that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for them to sustain a business with only 12 cars allowed. She stated that to remain open they need to generate $9,000 to $11,000 per month, and that if they have 12 display cars they might sell one or two a week at a profit of $1000 or less. Ms. Ebert noted that they sell lower-priced cars, mostly to a very close-by neighborhood market. She also noted that the cars that they sell are much smaller in size than those of the past. Ms. Lester asked if they also repair cars. Ms. Ebert stated that they have a small repair business, and that they also do some work on the cars that they are selling. Mr. Keller asked how long there had been an auto sales business at this location. Ms. Ebert replied that she knows that it has been at least since 1958. Mr. Gleason asked if they plan to display 21 cars or if that would include customer and employee parking. Ms. Ebert stated that there would be a total of 21 cars, including two employee spaces and two customer spaces. Mr. Gleason asked how they would handle snow removal. Ms. Ebert stated that they usually use a snow blower, except in very big storms, in which case they moved some of the cars off the lot and plowed. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION A letter in opposition from Mr. Mark Lewis, owner of All World Repairs located directly next door to the business, was entered into the record. Mr. Lewis stated that he regularly has cars turn around or park on his lot because Mr. Askew’s lot appears full, and he believes that this problem will be exacerbated by allowing more cars to be stored on the lot. Seeing no further members of the public wishing to speak Mr. Gleason closed the public comment portion of the meeting. 3  CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Gleason gave Ms. Ebert an opportunity to respond to the letter. Ms. Ebert stated that there are traffic problems in the neighborhood during pick-up and drop-off times for a nearby daycare, and she can understand Mr. Lewis’s frustration, but that at other times of the day there is never an overabundance of traffic. Mr. Keller asked why she thinks he would be opposed to their expansion if it would not directly affect him. Mr. Askew stated that he has been there a long time and perhaps would like to retire and sell his business. He stated that they are not in direct competition with him. The board members briefly discussed the application and it became apparent that there needed to be more information researched by staff regarding how many cars should be allowed on the lot. A Planning Commission decision from 2004 for the previous business stated 12, and the current Zoning Code says four. Counselor Smith stated that she needs to research whether the number of cars allowed would be grandfathered, or just the type of business. She recommended that the Board table the application until she could provide them with further information. MOTION TO TABLE Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. Keller, to table the application. Motion carried unanimously. C. RYAN LUCEY requests an Area Variance for 10-12 Yates Street to allow for the installation of a second sign on the side/rear of the property, which exceeds the total number of signs allowed for buildings located in the C-4 Downtown Mixed Use District pursuant to Chapter 264 Schedule I. Ron Levesque of The Sign Studio presented the application. Mr. Levesque explained that the business is in a unique location on a small side street, and that while they would like to have a small blade sign on the front of the building they are seeking a variance to install a sign on the side of the building which would be visible from a much greater distance. He noted that there are other businesses downtown that also have signs in the rear of their buildings, or facing a major parking area as this one will face the parking lot on Liberty Street. He noted that the applicants are not asking for an increase in the total amount of signage; they would like to divide their total amount allowed between the two signs. Mr. Keller asked if the sign will be illuminated. Mr. Levesque stated that it will be internally lit, but that the letter stroke will be very narrow so that there will not be any significant light pollution but it will be visible at night. Mr. 4  Keller asked if the building is two separate addresses. Mr. Levesque stated that it is, but that his clients plan to consolidate the lots. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. 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 variance because without the second sign it would be very difficult for potential customers to even know that the restaurant is there. Mr. Connelly agreed, and noted that they also have frontage on two streets. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, to approve the 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 any other method. 3. The variance is not substantial. 4. There will be no adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Motion carried unanimously. D. KELLY LIGHT requests an Area Variance for 246 Eleventh Street to allow for parking areas that are bounded by the extension of the single side building lines of the principle structure in the front yard, which is not allowed in the R-1 Single Family District pursuant to Chapter 264- 43A(1). Kelly Light presented the application. Ms. Light explained that this is a two-family rental house in a Single Family District. She stated that the property did not have enough parking for her tenants and they were parking on the lawn, leaving it muddy and rutted, so she paved the side yard for additional parking. She stated that she had been unaware that this was prohibited, but thinks that the property looks much better now. She passed around photos of her property and many neighboring properties with paved yards. Ms. Lester asked staff if the properties in the photos had been approved for paving. Counselor Smith stated that none of 5 them had been. She noted that the paving of yards has become endemic in the City and the administration has begun to pursue issuing violations. Mr. Keller asked Ms. Light when the paving was done and how much it cost. Ms. Light stated that it was approximately two months ago and that it cost $2200. Counselor Smith asked if she had obtained the required paving permit from the City. Ms. Light stated that she had not. Counselor Smith noted that if she had applied for a permit it would have been denied. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. 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 the City’s crack down on illegal paving but that he could not support asking someone to rip up paving that had just been put down. Mr. Keller asked how this problem could be mitigated in the future, or would everyone who claimed ignorance just get away with the violation. Mr. Gleason stated that he believes that code enforcement should be on the lookout for situations like this. Counselor Smith stated that the City does not have the manpower for inspectors to patrol the neighborhoods all day, which is why the permit system is in place. Mr. Connelly stated that in his years on the Board they have very rarely made someone remove something already in place and that he believes that the Board’s hands are tied in this case. Mr. Keller disagreed. Mr. Gleason suggested looking to the contractors who knowingly do the work without a permit. Counselor Smith stated that pursuing the contractors is not a feasible solution and the onus is on the property owner to follow the law. She added that claiming ignorance is not a defense. Mr. Keller agreed. Ms. Lester noted that any contractor she had ever worked with included in their contract that it is the homeowner’s responsibility to obtain all necessary permits. Counselor Smith stated that when issued a violation, property owners are told that they must remove the pavement or obtain a variance to keep it. She noted that if one owner is allowed a pass that will set a precedent and anyone who could pave without getting caught could claim ignorance and use this case as an example of why they shouldn’t be forced to comply. Mr. Keller agreed, stating that he is sympathetic to Ms. Light’s situation but that allowing the pavement to remain could definitely set a precedent. 6  AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Clark, to approve the 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 any other method. 3. There will be no adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Motion failed, with Mr. Gleason, Mr. Clark, and Mr. Connelly in favor and Mr. Keller and Ms. Lester opposed. Counselor Smith explained that the motion had failed and thus no variance was granted. She suggested that the applicant meet with staff and discuss finding a mutually agreeable solution. Ms. Light agreed. VI. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. 7