Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes November 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 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-Gilmore; Brendan Keller, Helene Lester; Avi Epstein, Zoning Officer; Krystina Smith, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Jennifer Mills, Secretary III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK None. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES None. V. NEW BUSINESS A. WILLIAM AND DONNA PRZEZDZIECKI request a Use Variance for 615 Spring Street, located in an R-2 District, to allow for a commercial storage unit which is not an allowed use pursuant to Schedule A. William Przezdziecki presented the application. Mr. Przezdziecki explained that the four-stall garage on the property was built by his father and has been rented to tenants, primarily for car storage, for 63 years. He stated that he would like to obtain a variance so that he can sell the property in the future and the new owner will be able to legally continue this use. He noted that the property is not large enough to build a house on. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Przezdziecki if any car repairs take place at the garage. Mr. Przezdziecki responded that the garage is strictly for storage and that there is no electrical service to it. He explained that his father originally built the garage because he owned this small lot and realized that most of the houses in the immediate area did not have garages, so he could see a demand  for the storage. Mr. Connelly asked if the existing building will remain, and will not be replaced or altered in any way. Mr. Przezdziecki stated that the building will remain as it is. Mr. Gleason asked Zoning Officer Epstein why this issue is now coming before the Board. Mr. Epstein stated that Mr. Przezdziecki had a party interested in buying the property, so he contacted the City to make sure that it was an allowable use, at which time it was discovered that it is not, because it is technically using the property for a commercial use, which is not allowed in the R-2 district. Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore asked Mr. Przezdziecki if he currently has a buyer for the property. Mr. Przezdziecki responded that the property had been under a contract for purchase, but that the contract had recently expired while this matter was pending. 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 he has no problem with allowing this continued use, as it has gone on for 63 years and has clearly not been a problem in the neighborhood. Mr. Connelly agreed, noting that the lot is so small that it most likely could not be used for any other purpose. The other Board Members concurred. USE VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, to approve the Use Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return with the allowed uses. 2. The alleged hardship relating to the property is unique, and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. 3. The requested use variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 4. The alleged hardship has not been self-created. Motion carried unanimously. B. CREJV MIXED FIVE 1 BRANCH HOLDINGS, LLC requests an Area Variance for 501 State Street, located in the C-4 Downtown District, to allow for a 50 sq. ft. “for sale” wall sign, where 25 sq. ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 264-63(I). 2 Alison Burnside of the Dartmouth Company presented the application. Ms. Burnside explained that due to the size and location of the building, which they are currently marketing for sale, they are seeking a variance for a larger “for sale” sign. Mr. Gleason noted that they are requesting to double the allowed signage. Ms. Burnside stated that the current sign is 1% of the building’s façade, and the larger sign would be 2%. Mr. Connelly noted that hopefully the sign will only be temporary. Mr. Keller asked Ms. Burnside if she believes that the sign on the property makes a discernible difference, since so much marketing of properties is done online. Ms. Burnside stated that they would like to have a sign on the property that is visible to developers in the area; she showed a photo of the current sign and noted that it is hardly noticeable from the street. Mr. Keller asked if Ms. Burnside if her company is representing the owners. Ms. Burnside replied that they are. She explained that the building is owned by a real estate trust based in Arizona. 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 Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore noted that the building is very large and set back. Mr. Keller stated that he would approve the variance on the condition that the variance if specific to a “for sale” sign only. Mr. Gleason stated that he doubts that the property will sell because someone drives by and sees that it’s for sale, but he understands the applicant’s point that this is a unique case, due to the size and location of the building. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Connelly, 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 be no adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged hardship is not self-created. 3  And with the following condition: 1. The sign may be used only for marketing the property as for sale. Motion carried unanimously. C. MAYRA THEN requests a Use Variance for 1549 Carrie Street, located in an R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow for used car sales, which is not an allowed use pursuant to Section 264-9 and Schedule A. Darlene Then presented the application. Ms. Then explained that her parents own the building and that several years ago they had obtained a variance to continue running a restaurant on the site, which had previously been the home of Rupsis’s Tavern for many years. She stated that they had trouble finding honest employees for the restaurant, which they needed because they also run the nearby Cousins Deli on Van Vranken Avenue, and subsequently the restaurant closed. Ms. Then stated that she and her boyfriend had been running a used auto sales business in Rotterdam for the past year, and agreed to move their business to this site to help off-set the expenses that her parents were incurring from the vacant property. She noted that nothing has changed on the property, except that they are using the interior space as an office and park some used autos in the parking area, and they had put lettering in the window for signage. Mr. Gleason asked what the hours of the business are. Ms. Then stated that they are open Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Saturday from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. Mr. Connelly asked when they started selling cars on the property. Ms. Then stated that they moved their business in April and began selling there a few weeks later. Mr. Gleason asked if there are apartments in the building and if so, if the tenants have parking on the site. Ms. Then stated that two of the three apartments are rented, but they do not provide parking for the tenants. She explained that they either park on the street or in a vacant lot nearby. Mr. Gleason asked Mr. Epstein if he knew of any problems or complaints that Ms. Then had when her business was at its former location. Mr. Epstein stated that he was not aware of any, but noted that the business had been in Rotterdam. Mr. Connelly asked how many cars would be on display on the lot. Ms. Then stated that the maximum they display is nine to ten cars, and that they usually sell one to two cars per week. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR 4  Arnold Tobin, of 520 Hattie Street, spoke in favor of the application, stating that the property owners have been good neighbors and that he believes that this business would be a good use of the building. Peter Greenwood, of 1567 Carrie Street, spoke in favor of the application, stating that the applicants are good neighbors and that he would rather there be a used car lot at this location than a bar. The following neighbors spoke in favor of the application and stated the same reasons: Jessica Greenwood, 1567 Carrie Street Linda King, 1561 Carrie Street Jeiphry Camillo, 609 Hattie Street Danny Brito, 609 Hattie Street PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Gleason stated that he agrees that the auto sales business would have less of an impact on the neighborhood than the previous bar and restaurant did. Mr. Keller asked staff if the applicants have space to legally display the cars on the lot. Counselor Smith stated that if the applicants are granted a variance they will still have to go before the Planning Commission for site plan approval before they can legally operate the business. USE VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to approve the Use Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return with the allowed uses. 2. The alleged hardship relating to the property is unique, and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. 3. The requested use variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 4. The alleged hardship has not been self-created. And with the following condition: 1. The applicants must obtain site plan approval from the City Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. D. PAUL FALLATI requests Area Variances for 220 Harborside Drive located in the C-3 Waterfront District to allow for a 122-square foot pylon sign, with a height of 22 feet, where a 75-square foot sign with a height of 7 feet is allowed pursuant to Section 264-61 Schedule I. 5 Paul Fallati of the Galesi Group, Dan Hershberg of Hershberg & Hershberg Engineers, and Pat Boni of Saxton Sign Company presented the application. Mr. Hershberg presented the sign design and reviewed the proposed landscaping and materials. He explained that the sign had been significantly reduced in size since the last presentation, from a height of 30 feet to 22 feet. He noted that the size of the individual business panels and the LED board had also been reduced. Mr. Hershberg stated that due to the reduced size of the electronic message board and the change in the proposed setback, the applicants are now seeking only one variance, for the overall size of the sign, where three were previously needed. At the Board’s request, Mr. Hershberg presented mock-up photos from various angles showing how the sign will look once installed. Mr. Keller commented that he does not like the electronic message board. Mr. Hershberg noted that it is an allowed sign and does not need a variance, and stated that the applicants feel it is a necessary component of the sign. Mr. Fallati noted that Planning staff had approved the reduced size sign. Mr. Epstein stated that the Planning Commission expressed their support of granting the variance. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR Ray Gillen, Chairman of the Metroplex Development Authority, spoke in favor of the application. He stated that millions of dollars have been invested in this site, and that they believe that this sign is necessary to attract both tenants and consumer traffic. Pat Popolizio, owner of the property across Erie Boulevard, spoke in favor of the sign. He stated that he understands the need for it and feels that it is an acceptable size for a project of this scale. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Connelly stated that he believes that the reduced size is more appropriate for this location. Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore agreed, adding that Mohawk Harbor is a unique development within the City and she believes that it deserves special consideration. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, to approve the Area Variances based on the following findings of fact: 1. An undesirable change will not be produced in the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another method. 6  3. The variance is not substantial. 4. There will be no adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged hardship is not self-created. Motion carried unanimously. VI. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Ms. Lester, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 7:33 p.m. 7