Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes March 14, 2018 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gleason called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.0 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; Brendan Keller; Helene Lester; Krystina Smith, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Avi Epstein, Zoning Officer; Jennifer Mills, Secretary EXCUSED: Fred Clark III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore stated that she would be recusing herself from Item I, the Beeshram Ramdeo application. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES None. V. NEW BUSINESS A. COMMUNITY BUILDERS requests an Area Variance for 732 (49.24-5- 23.2), 736 (49.24-5-24), 738 (49.24-5-25), Albany Street and 299 (49.24-5- 23.1), 301 (49.24-5-22), 305 (49.24-5-21), 307 (49.24-5-20), 309 (49.24-5- 19), 311 (49.24-5-18), 313 (49.24-5-17) Germania Avenue, and 288 (49.24- 5-26), and 300 (49.24-5-27), Paige Street to establish parking spaces with a stall depth of 18 feet, side yard setback of 2 feet, and to provide 71 parking spaces where a parking stall depth of 20 feet, side yard setback of 15 feet, and 123 parking spaces are required pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance. Jennica Huff of The Community Builders, Dave Sadowsky of Sadowsky Architecture, and Kelsey Carr of The Chazen Companies presented the application. Mr. Gleason asked the applicants and the Board Members if they would like to discuss the applications together, since they relate directly to one another in many cases. The applicants and Board Members agreed to do so. Ms. Huff gave a brief overview of the project and sites and explained that Community Builders is developing 115 mixed income and affordable housing units in this second phase of their development project in Hamilton Hill. She noted that Phase 1, which includes 58 units in the neighborhood, is nearing construction completion now. Mr. Sadowsky presented the site plans for the individual sites and noted where the variances were being sought. He explained that everywhere relief is being sought for side yard setbacks screening fences will be installed. He noted that while they are seeking a variance for decreased parking, the need of the Community Builders sites are typically even lower than what is being proposed. Ms. Huff noted that in other areas they typically provide .75 spaces per unit, and those spaces are never fully used. Ms. Carr also reviewed the various site plans. She noted that on the 909-913 Delamont Avenue site the three existing homes had more non-compliant site coverage than they are proposing. Mr. Connelly asked how parking spaces will be assigned. Ms. Huff stated that they use a permit system. Mr. Keller asked how big the apartments will be in the mid-rise building, and if any green space is planned. Mr. Sadowsky stated they will be mostly one- and two-bedroom apartments, with a few three-bedroom units. Ms. Huff stated that there is extensive green space planned, and that Community Builders will be working with Community Gardens, as they have on several other projects, to install garden space on the sites. Mr. Keller asked if it would be possible to put more parking spaces on the single-lot sites. Ms. Carr stated that they had tried various configurations but that due to the narrowness of the lots this was the only design that works. She noted that the green space at the rear of the lots will be planted and maintained. Mr. Keller stated that his only reservation is that there will not be a minimum of one parking space per unit. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR A letter in favor of the applications from Debra Schimpf, Executive Director of Schenectady Community Action Program, was entered into the record. She noted that The Community Builders has a proven record of accomplishment as a responsible developer and that her organization believes that this project will have a tremendous positive impact on the neighborhood. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION 2  A letter in opposition to the applications from Florence VanAlsyne-Hagadorn, resident of 345 Hulett Street, as entered into the record. Ms. VanAlsyne- Hagadorn stated that she does not support the idea of off-site parking, which she believes could result in increased vandalism and property damage. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Connelly stated that while he can understand the concerns raised about adequate parking he believes that this area has more than enough on-street parking to make up for any potential shortfall. Mr. Gleason agreed. Mr. Keller stated that he had not been aware of the amount of on-street parking available, and with that being the case he would have no objection to the reduced parking being allowed. 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. And with the following conditions: 1. The proposed combined lots comprised of parcels currently identified as 732, 736, and 738 Albany Street, 299, 301, 305, 307, 309, 311, and 313 Germania Avenue and 288 and 300 Paige Street will be consolidated as proposed. 2. The proposal must obtain site plan approval from the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. B. COMMUNITY BUILDERS requests an Area Variance for 308 (49.24-4- 22) & 310 (49.24-4-23) Germania Avenue to establish parking with a stall depth of 18 feet where 20 feet is required pursuant to Schedule E. Jennica Huff of Community Builders, Dave Sadowsky of Sadowsky Architecture, and Kelsey Carr of The Chazen Companies presented the application. The proposal was discussed as part of a combined discussion of Community Builders Items A-F (please see above). PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR 3  None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. 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. And with the following condition: 1. The proposed combined lots comprised of parcels currently identified as 308 and 310 Germania Avenue will be consolidated as proposed. Motion carried unanimously. C. COMMUNITY BUILDERS requests an Area Variance for 307 Paige Street (49.24-5-20) & 744 Albany Street (49.24-5-62) to provide a parking stall depth of 18 feet, side yard setback of 1 foot, and no front setback where a stall depth of 20 feet, side yard setback of 15 feet, and front yard setback of 4 feet is required pursuant to Schedule E & 264-43 D. Jennica Huff of Community Builders, Dave Sadowsky of Sadowsky Architecture, and Kelsey Carr of The Chazen Companies presented the application. The proposal was discussed as part of a combined discussion of Community Builders Items A-F (please see above). PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, to approve the Area Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. No undesirable change will be produced in the neighborhood. 4  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. And with the following condition: 1. The proposed combined lots comprised of parcels currently identified as 307 Paige Street and 744 Albany Street will be consolidated as proposed. Motion carried unanimously. D. COMMUNITY BUILDERS requests an Area Variance for 802 Sprague Street (49.33-2-65) to establish parking spaces with a 5-foot setback where 15 feet is required pursuant to 264-102. B.7. Jennica Huff of Community Builders, Dave Sadowsky of Sadowsky Architecture, and Kelsey Carr of The Chazen Companies presented the application. The proposal was discussed as part of a combined discussion of Community Builders Items A-F (please see above). PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. 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. And with the following condition: 1. Proposal must obtain a Special Use Permit from the Planning Commission. 5  Motion carried unanimously. E. COMMUNITY BUILDERS requests an Area Variance for 806 Sprague Street (49.33-2-68) to establish parking spaces with a 5-foot setback where 15 feet is required pursuant to 264-102. B.7. Jennica Huff of Community Builders, Dave Sadowsky of Sadowsky Architecture, and Kelsey Carr of The Chazen Companies presented the application. The proposal was discussed as part of a combined discussion of Community Builders Items A-F (please see above). PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, 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. And with the following condition: 1. Proposal must obtain a Special Use Permit from the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. F. COMMUNITY BUILDERS requests an Area Variance for 909 (49.33-3- 28), 911 (49.33-3-27) & 913 (49.33-3-26) Delamont Avenue to construct a 6-unit apartment building with a 4.8 foot side setback, max lot coverage of 30.2%, and on a minimum lot area of 9,300 square feet where a 9.3 foot side setback, 30% max lot coverage, and 13,500 square foot minimum lot area are required pursuant to Schedule C. 6  Jennica Huff of Community Builders, Dave Sadowsky of Sadowsky Architecture, and Kelsey Carr of The Chazen Companies presented the application. The proposal was discussed as part of a combined discussion of Community Builders Items A-F (please see above). PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. 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. And with the following condition: 1. The proposed combined lots comprised of parcels currently identified as 909, 911, and 913 Delamont Avenue will be consolidated as proposed. Motion carried unanimously. G. PAUL FALLATI requests an Area Variance for 301 Nott Street (39.49-2- 1.611) located in the C-3 Waterfront Mixed Use District to allow for a third sign, which exceeds the total number allowed pursuant to Section 264-61 Schedule I. Carlos Teixeira, owner of the Dunkin Donuts franchise, presented the application. Mr. Teixeira explained that there is currently a sign on the front of the building, and a monument sign, but on the parking side of the building there is no sign indicating which entrance is for Dunkin Donuts and where the customers should park to be close to that entrance. He stated that many customers have complained that it is not clear where to park and how to enter the business. 7  PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR Killeen Cirilla spoke in favor of the proposal, stating that the site is confusing, and it is unclear how a potential customer should enter Dunkin Donuts, since the bank entrance is also on that side of the building. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Connelly stated that he believes that this is a unique situation where multiple sides of the building are visible to traffic and require signage to make the business location clear to the potential customers. 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. H. JEEWAN SINGH requests an Area Variance for 1222 George Street located in an R-1 Single Family District to allow for a carport that is 844 square feet and setback 5 feet from the property line where a maximum of 525 square feet and a 60-foot setback are required pursuant to Schedule C and Section 264-29D(a). Aston McLear presented the application on behalf of Mr. Singh, who was also present. Mr. McLear explained that Mr. Singh has five children, and because he wanted to provide a play space for them in the garage he decided to add a carport to shelter his vehicles. He stated that the carport was installed in June of 2017, and that the installing contractor told Mr. Singh that a permit was not required. Mr. McLear noted that Mr. Singh has pulled permits for all other work that has been done on the property and has obtained a rental certificate from the City for his rental unit. Mr. Gleason asked if the carport is constructed of metal. Mr. McLear stated that it is. Mr. Connelly asked if it is taller than the garage. Mr. McLear stated 8  that it is the same height. Mr. Keller asked if Mr. Singh had talked to anyone in the Building Department prior to installing the carport. Mr. McLear stated that he did not, because he believed the contractor when he told him that a permit was not required. Zoning Officer Epstein noted that the company is aware of the ordinance, and that this is not the first incident of its kind involving them. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Keller asked if the Board would have approved the carport if it had come before them pre-contruction. Mr. Connelly stated that he does not approve of the placement and believes that it could become an eyesore for the neighbors. Ms. Lester asked if the neighbors have complained. Mr. Epstein stated that they have not. Mr. Connelly stated that if the Board grants a variance influenced by the fact that the carport is already installed they run the risk of setting a precedent. Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore stated that she would like to see more pictures of the property that show the carport in relation to the street and the other buildings on the site. The Board Members agreed and decided to table the application pending further photos being submitted. MOTION TO TABLE Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Commissioner Keller, to table the application pending submittal of additional information. Motion carried unanimously. I. BEESHRAM RAMDEO requests a Use Variance for 1075 Strong Street located in the R-1 Single Family District to construct and operate a motor vehicle repair service which is not allowed pursuant to Schedule A. Beeshram Ramdeo, Frank Gilmore, architect for the project, and Killeen Cirilla, attorney for the applicant, presented the application. Mr. Gilmore explained that the property in question is approximately 100” by 100”, is located at the end of Strong Street, and is surrounded by homes that are approximately fifty years old. He showed an aerial view of the property, noting that the site had been covered with mature trees and was most likely never developed due to the shape of the lot and the small amount of road frontage. Mr. Gilmore stated that Mr. Ramdeo would like to use the property to build a garage facility to repair the diesel engines used in large trucks. He noted that the garage would have an exhaust system so that the doors could 9 remain closed at all times, and that the existing fence around the property would remain as a buffer for the residential neighbors. Mr. Gilmore stated that the proposed building design and site plan would require no additional variances, and they do not believe that the proposed use would be detrimental to the neighborhood. He stated that when Mr. Ramdeo purchased the property he was not aware that the site is in an R-1 District. Mr. Connelly asked how tall the building would be. Mr. Gilmore replied that it will be 24 feet high at the peak, with 14-foot garage doors. Mr. Connelly asked how many trucks could be in the building at one time. Mr. Ramdeo replied that six or seven would be manageable. He noted that he is looking for other properties nearby where he could store trucks off-site. Mr. Gleason asked if there would be other employees besides Mr. Ramdeo. Mr. Ramdeo stated that it would be him and his son, who is going to school for diesel engine repair, and most likely two other employees. Mr. Connelly asked what the proposed hours of operation are. Mr. Ramdeo stated that they would be Monday through Friday, from 7 am to 6 pm. He noted that he believes that the business will generate economic activity for the City, as drivers who bring their trucks to him to be serviced will be waiting in the city before getting back on the road, and thus will be spending money on lodging, food, etc. Ms. Cirilla stated that the next-door neighbor, who sold him the property, knew what he wanted to do with it and had no objection. Mr. Keller asked when he bought the property. Mr. Ramdeo stated that he bought it in April 2017. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Gleason asked the Board if they had any concerns about the application. Counselor Smith stated that she is concerned that the applicant does not meet the hardship criteria, as he purchased a single-family residential property with the intent of putting a commercial business on it. Mr. Keller asked if the lot, which could potentially hold three homes, would be developable for residential property. Mr. Epstein stated that due to the 40’ frontage only one residential unit would be allowed, despite the large size of the lot. Mr. Keller stated that the believes that this would support the idea that the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return from the property. Mr. Connelly asked if Mr. Ramdeo had considered residential development. Mr. Ramdeo stated that he had not, as he had purchased the property with the 10  intent to use it for his business. He added that he was told by the seller that it was a commercial property. Ms. Smith reminded the Board Members that the onus is on the applicant to prove that the hardship is not self-created. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Ramdeo if the seller told him it was a commercial site. Mr. Ramdeo stated that he had. Mr. Epstein stated that not knowing the zoning of the property is not a sufficient argument for hardship, as it is the buyer’s responsibility to search out the correct information or verify the information that he has been given. Mr. Gilmore stated that it would be impossible to build a single-family residence on this lot, given the cost of construction and comparable prices within the neighborhood, and realize a reasonable return. Ms. Cirilla commented that both the seller and the buyer believed that the property was commercial, and the appearance of the property supported that belief. Mr. Gleason suggested that the Board either move forward or table the proposal pending more information regarding the hardship criteria, both from Counsel and the applicant. The Board Members agreed to table the proposal. MOTION TO TABLE Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Commissioner Keller, to table the application pending submittal of additional information. Motion carried, with Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore abstaining. J. FRED MASTROIANNI requests a Use Variance for 1064 Catalyn Street located in the C-2 Mixed Use District to allow for a towing and trucking business which is not allowed pursuant to Schedule B. Fred Mastroianni presented the application. Mr. Mastroianni explained that his father built the building on the property in 1971, and that the property has been used as a body shop, used car dealership, and or auto repair business since that time. He stated that he inherited the property in 2012. Mr. Mastroianni noted that there are currently four other existing similar businesses on Catalyn Street, and only one single-family residence on the whole street, which is a rental unit. He stated that the street is made up of largely industrial-type businesses, and that it has been the same for many years. Mr. Gleason asked if the proposed use will be a trucking business, using tractor-trailer type trucks. Mr. Mastroianni replied that it will be a towing business, but that the business does use one large flatbed wrecker to tow larger vehicles. He stated that they would have a total of 4-6 trucks, mostly of the standard tow truck variety, and that any auto repair on the property would be 11 for the maintenance of their trucks only. Mr. Mastroianni explained that the business has a contract with the NYS Thruway, so they pick up disable vehicles and them would hold them temporarily at the site until they were moved to where they would be repaired. Mr. Gleason asked how many cars would fit on the lot. Mr. Mastroianni replied that 50 cars fit easily. Counselor Smith asked Mr. Mastroianni how long the body shop was operational on the site. Mr. Mastroianni replied that the body shop ran from 1971 until 1998, when his father leased the property to Vince’s Garage, which was in business at the site until 2012. He stated that since then he has been marketing the property for sale. Ms. Smith explained that Mr. Mastroianni needs a variance for the proposed use because the Zoning Ordinance changed in 2008 and the use of the building was grandfathered until the property was not used for that purpose for two years, which beginning in 2012 it was not, and thus it lost its grandfathered status. Mr. Keller asked Zoning Officer Epstein what the allowed uses are now. Mr. Epstein responded that auto repair and sales are allowed, but not auto body or towing businesses. He noted that the property is immediately adjacent to the “M-1” Light Industrial zone. Mr. Mastroianni’s Real Estate broker Steven Lerner stated that he has been marketing the property for almost four years, and while there has been some interest from potential buyers all were looking for a site for some type of industrial business. Counselor Smith asked Mr. Lerner if they have had any written offers on the property prior to the current offer. Mr. Lerner stated that they have not. Counselor Smith asked if the interested parties wanted to use the property for an allowed use. Mr. Larsen stated that all the potential buyers were seeking property for a use that is not allowed under the current zoning. Counselor Smith noted that when Mr. Mastroianni inherited the property in 2012 this use would have technically still been allowed but was lost in 2015. Mr. Keller stated that given the area and the history of the property he does not have a problem with granting the variance. Mr. Gleason agreed, and asked if any of the Board Members felt that the criteria for the Use Variance had not been met. The other Members concurred that this application met the criteria for the use variance. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION 12  Counselor Smith noted that the letter submitted by National Grid regarding the proposal concerns a boundary dispute that has nothing to do with the application and should therefore be disregarded. 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: 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. VI. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. Lester, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. 13