Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes January 3, 2018 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. He added that after the initial presentation of the proposal the applicant would not be given another opportunity to comment unless directly questioned by a Board Member. 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. SAMEER GADWAH requests a Use Variance for 1318 State Street, located in the C-2 Mixed Use District, to allow for an exterior sales lot for motor vehicles which is not permitted pursuant to Schedule B. Sameer Gadwah and his attorney Killeen Cirilla presented the application. Ms. Cirilla explained that the property has four residential units and two offices, and that in the past it was used for many years as Museum Motors used auto sales. She noted that the parking lot has spaces for more than 40 cars. She stated that when he purchased the property her client assumed that it could be used for auto sales, and that he was unaware that two years had passed since the previous business closed and thus the use was no longer allowed without a variance. Ms. Cirilla explained that Mr. Gadwah would like to display 10-15 cars initially, perhaps adding more as his business grows, and that he would use the small offices for the auto sales business, as it is required by NYSDOT that auto sales businesses have an interior office space. She added that he plans to use the existing pole sign and simply replace the sign face. Mr. Connelly asked Mr. Gadwah if he owns the building. Mr. Gadwah replied that he does, and that he closed on the purchase in September 2017. Mr. Connelly asked if Mr. Gadwah knows why some of the parking spaces by the building are numbered. Mr. Gadwah stated that he does not, but that perhaps they were meant for the tenants of the apartments. He noted that he plans to have tenant parking at the rear of the lot. Mr. Gleason asked if there is a garage on the property and if he plans to do any repair work on cars. Mr. Gadwah replied that there is a small garage and that he might do minor repairs such as oil changes or brake replacements as necessary, but that he would not be doing any body work on the site. Mr. Gleason asked what the proposed hours of operation are. Mr. Gadwah stated that he would like to be open daily from 8 am to 4:30 pm. Zoning Officer Epstein noted that the pole sign is considered an abandoned sign and must be removed. He added that the new sign must have two poles or be a monument sign, and must be approved by planning staff prior to installation. Ms. Cirilla stated that her client would have no objection to this. COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION A letter in opposition to the application from Delton Courtney, a neighbor, was entered into the record. Mr. Courtney stated that there is a shared driveway on the property, and that he is concerned that increased traffic on the site could be hazardous to children playing nearby. Mr. Gadwah stated that the driveway is not shared but simply paved to directly abut the neighbor’s, making it appear as if it is one wide driveway. He added that the driveway will not be used by traffic to and from the proposed business. Seeing no members of the public wishing to speak Mr. Gleason closed the public comment portion of the meeting. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Connelly asked Mr. Epstein if auto sales is an allowed use. Mr. Epstein stated that an interior auto sales showroom is, but a variance is required for the outdoor display of cars for sale. Mr. Keller asked what information Mr. Epstein could provide about the prior use of the property. Mr. Epstein stated that in 2007 a Special Use Permit was granted by the BZA to allow the 2 previous auto sales business, but that it has been out of business for more than 2 years. He noted that the zoning code changed in 2008. Counselor Smith stated that because of two years having passed the business is now a discontinued prior non-conforming use. Mr. Keller stated that he would not have a problem granting the variance if the applicant could sufficiently demonstrate that the necessary conditions could be satisfied. He reviewed the conditions for the applicant and asked for any additional responses they might offer. Ms. Cirilla stated that they believe that with a parking lot of this size a reasonable return cannot be achieved with the allowed uses. She added that the large parking area does make this property unique, and that the variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood as there are many other used car businesses nearby and this site was used for this business for many years prior. She noted that Mr. Gadwah bought the property knowing that it had previously been used for auto sales and assumed that he could continue that use. Mr. Keller asked if Mr. Gadwah had explored other ways to use the property. Mr. Gadwah stated that he had not, as since buying the property he has been focused on renovating the apartments and readying them for tenants. He added that he lives in one apartment, and another is currently rented. Mr. Gleason stated that he believes that the property is unique because of the size of the parking lot, and that the lot could not be utilized in another way and still provide a reasonable return. Mr. Keller asked if the offices have frontage on State Street. Mr. Gadwah stated that they face the side lot where the cars would be displayed. Ms. Lester asked if he plans to use both offices for the auto business. Mr. Gadwah stated that he does. Counselor Smith stated that one could argue either way whether the hardship is self-created, but she believes that it was reasonable for Mr. Gadwah to expect that he could continue the prior use upon purchasing the property. The Board Members agreed. USE VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Keller, 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. Motion carried unanimously. 3  B. TEEKAH LACHMAN requests a Use Variance for 1151 Hilderbrandt Avenue, located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District, to allow for a 9-unit apartment building which is not permitted pursuant to Schedule A. Teekah Lachman and his attorney Killeen Cirilla appeared before the Board. Ms. Cirilla explained that Mr. Lachman is currently negotiating a contract with the City to buy this property. She stated that the City is requesting that the building be renovated to have only two units, which Mr. Lachman feels is an unrealistic expectation for a building this large. Zoning Officer Epstein confirmed that the City feels that two units would be the most appropriate option. Ms. Cirilla stated that her client would like to have 9 apartments, but could do 6; however, he does not feel that anything less than 6 would be financially feasible. Mr. Lachman stated that the building currently has eleven units, which he would like to reduce to nine, with three two-bedroom apartments on each floor. He explained that he understands that there is an issue with sufficient parking not being available on the site or on the street, and that he is negotiating with the City to buy a vacant lot on Moyston Street for parking for tenants. He added that the lot could hold 30 cars. Counselor Smith stated that before the presentation progressed further she felt it necessary to explain that since the applicant does not own the property she does not believe that he has proper standing to request the variance. She noted that the applicants were given the impression by the Deputy Corporation Counsel Rachael Ward that they could proceed with the application as they have, and that had she and Counselor Ward had a chance to discuss the situation perhaps it could have been handled differently. She apologized to Mr. Lachman for the misunderstanding, and explained that in her legal opinion he would need to have written permission from the current property owner, in this case the City, to seek the variance before taking possession of the property. Ms. Cirilla stated that her client needs to make sure that a mutually agreeable number of units is allowed before closing on the property. Counselor Smith stated that she understood, and suggested that the Board table the application until the matter can be discussed further with City staff. The Board agreed that this would be the proper way to proceed. MOTION TO TABLE Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to table the application. Motion carried unanimously. VI. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to adjourn the meeting. 4 Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. 5