Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes February 14, 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; David V. Connelly, Jr.; Mary D’Alessandro- Gilmore; Helene Lester; Avi Epstein, Zoning Officer; Jennifer Mills, Secretary EXCUSED: Fred Clark; Brendan Keller; Krystina Smith, Assistant Corporation Counsel III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK None. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES None. V. NEW BUSINESS A. 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 presented the application, which had been tabled at the January meeting due to questions about the City’s position on the application and who should present it, since Mr. Lachman does not yet own the building. Ms. Cirilla explained that the building is very large and currently is divided into eleven units, which the applicant wishes to renovate into 9 units of equal size, with three on each floor. She stated that they understand that the building has been a nuisance property, with problems with squatters and loitering, but feel that once it is rehabilitated it will be a great improvement to the immediate area and to the neighborhood as a whole. Ms. Cirilla added that part of Mr. Lachman’s deal with the City is to purchase the vacant lot at 18 Moyston Street, which is directly across the street, to provide parking for the tenants. Mr. Connelly asked how many parking spaces could fit at 18 Moyston Street. Mr. Lachman responded that he believes that up to 24 spaces would fit. Zoning Officer Epstein noted that the lot is a standard sized City lot and there should be more than enough room for the 14 spaces required for a nine-unit building. Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore asked Mr. Lachman if he had closed on the property yet. Mr. Lachman replied that he had not, as one of the contingencies of the purchase contract was his being able to obtain the necessary variance to be able to have nine units in the building. He added that with only two units, as is allowed under the current zoning, the project would not be economically viable. Mr. Connelly asked Mr. Lachman if he plans to make any alterations to the outside of the building, such as additions or significant modifications. Mr. Lachman responded that he plans to clean the building and the site, repoint any brick as necessary and install new windows where they are needed, but that the building exterior is in fairly good shape. He added that the building will be required to pass all the necessary code inspections before any rental certificates are issued. Mr. Epstein stated that the applicant will also be required to obtain site plan approval from the City Planning Commission. Mr. Epstein noted that the building needs a variance because it was a pre- existing non-conforming use, but that status had been lost because it has been vacant since 2012. He presented a letter from Deputy Corporation Counsel Rachael Ward explaining the situation and granting Mr. Lachman permission to seek the variance, even though he is not the current owner of the building. COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Gleason stated that nine units seem to be a reasonable amount for a building of this size, and that having the building be rehabilitated will be good for the surrounding neighborhood. The Board Members agreed. USE VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to approve the Use Variance based on the following findings of fact: 2  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 applicant must obtain site plan approval from the City Planning Commission prior to any permits being issued or any work being done on the site. Motion carried unanimously. B. JOHN SAMATULSKI requests an Area Variance for 432 Franklin Street, located in the C-4 Downtown District, to allow for a 6-unit apartment building to provide zero parking spaces, where 9 are required pursuant to Section 264-44 Schedule F. John Samatulski appeared before the Board. Mr. Samatulski briefly reviewed the main points of his application, explaining that the residential use he would like to convert the building to is consistent with other buildings in the area. He added that the hardship is clearly not self- created, as there was never any on-site parking for the building. Mr. Samatulski stated that he feels that this will be the best use for this building, since office space in these older buildings is not competitive with newer office space in the area. He noted that most of the on-street parking demand would most likely be during non-business hours, when residents return home from work. Mr. Gleason asked what the general price point will be for the apartments. Mr. Samatulski stated that they will be below luxury apartment levels but will still be geared toward middle-class residents. COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Connelly stated that he believes that residential conversions are a good solution for properties such as this one, which might otherwise remain vacant. Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore agreed, stating that she does not believe that six 3  units will provide too great a demand on local on-street parking. The other Board members concurred. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, 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. Motion carried unanimously. VI. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m. 4