Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes April 4, 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; Brendan Keller; Helene Lester, Fred Clark; Krystina Smith, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Avi Epstein, Zoning Officer EXCUSED: Jennifer Mills III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore stated that she would be recusing herself from Item B, the Beeshram Ramdeo application. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES None. V. OLD BUSINESS A. JEEWAN SINGH requests an Area Variance for 1222 George St. (49.71-2-26) located in the R-1 Single Family District to allow for a carport that is 844 sq. ft. and setback 5/ft from property line where 525 sq. ft. and a 60 ft. setback are required pursuant to Schedule C and §264-29D(a). Aston McLear presented the application on behalf of Mr. Singh, who was not present. Mr. McLear explained that he was back to present supplemental information that was requested by the board during the prior meeting. Mr. McLear said that the photos show the carport from the street side and from behind the house. 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. He also stated that he has pulled permits in the past for other work to be done and has never been in violation. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Connelly asked what the garage behind the carport was used for. Mr. McLear stated that it was turned into a play area for Mr. Singh’s children. Mr. Gleason asked why the carport had to be so close to the sidewalk. Mr. McLear said it was placed in that location for convenience. Mr. Connelly asked if the company discussed who would pull the permits which Mr. McLear said the company said they would pull all necessary permits however they didn’t provide this writing. Mr. Keller asked if other permits had been pulled by Mr. McLear in the past. Mr. McLear said he has pulled permits for other jobs in the past. AREA VARIANCE DENIAL Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to deny the Area Variances based on the following findings of fact: 1. An undesirable change would be produced in the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by another method. 3. The variance is substantial. 4. The alleged hardship is self-created. And with the following conditions: 1. The applicant has 30 days to remove the structure. Motion carried unanimously. B. BEESHRAM RAMDEO requests a Use Variance for 1075 Strong St. (49.50- 1-17.3) 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 and Frank Gilmore, architect for the project, 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 plus years old. He displayed zoning maps from 2006 2  and 2008 showing the difference in zoning classification for the property in question. He explained that in 2006 it was zoned “Commercial” and in 2008 it was rezoned to “Single Family Residential”. Mr. Gilmore passed around maps that showed the changes from 2006 to 2008. Mr. Gilmore then displayed a rendering of what the parcel in question would look like if it was 35’ wide like the parcel directly to the North of it. He stated that it would be very difficult to build a house on this property as it has very little frontage and directly abuts another commercial parcel. Mr. Gilmore explained that the MLS values of adjacent homes demonstrated that his client would not be able to get a reasonable return if he used the property as residential. Mr. Epstein clarified that although the parcel was previously zoned commercial, it is no longer considered legally nonconforming since the use was discontinued for a period greater than two years. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION 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 stated that he felt the criteria for reasonable return appears to be present but that the issue of a self-created hardship still remains. Mr. Connelly echoed similar concerns about not meeting the standards required to obtain a use variance based on the lack of evidence that the hardship was not self-created. MOTION TO TABLE Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to table the Use Variance application based on the following findings of fact: 1. An 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. 5. The alleged hardship is self-created. And with the following condition: 1. Applicant must go to City Council for rezoning of this property. Motion carried unanimously. 3 VI. NEW BUSINESS C. DHARMADEO TOTARAM requests an Area Variance for 909 Francis Ave. (49.47-2-31) located in the R-2 Two-Family District to erect a 750 sq.ft. carport where a 392 sq.ft. carport is allowed pursuant to Schedule C. Dharmadeo Totaram owner of 909 Francis and Ms. Sahabir, cousin of the applicant presented the application. Mr. Totaram stated that he is the owner of local business and had the carport installed where it currently is about 10 years ago. He noted that he uses the carport for his home and business as other locations closer to his business did not have parking available. Ms. Sahabir stated that the applicant travels regularly to NYC and wants to have a safe and protected place to leave his vehicle parked when not in the area. Mr. Totaram said that he is not aware of any issues with his neighbors concerning the carports size and location. The applicant states that he would like to keep it there as he cannot easily adjust the size of it without much effort. Mr. Connelly asked the applicant if he was aware of the permit required and or the zoning regulations. Mr. Totaram stated that he was unaware that it required both a permit and clearance from the zoning department. Mr. Connelly asked what the applicant was storing in the carport. Mr. Totaram noted that it was mainly for his commercial vehicle. Counselor Smith ask Mr. Epstein if this was allowed, to which he informed everyone that the use of a commercial vehicle in a residential zoning district was not allowed under the ordinance. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Gleason and Mr. Connelly noted that perhaps there should be a statement coming from the City or the Mayor’s office that these carports require building permits and that it is the responsibility of the owners (applicants) to make sure they are obtained whether through the contractors or on their own. AREA VARIANCE DENIAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, to deny the Area Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. An undesirable change will be produced in the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by another method. 4  3. The variance is substantial. 4. There will be an adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged hardship is self-created. And with the following condition: 1. Applicant has 30 days to remove the carport from the date of the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. D. MARTEL MANAGEMENT, LLC requests an Area Variance for 1701 Union St. (50.31-3-27) located in the C-2 Mixed-Use District to construct an addition with a rear setback of 1.8 ft. where 15 ft. is required pursuant to §264-37. Bruce A. Martel, owner of the property, presented the application to the board. Mr. Martel stated that he is looking to make some significant upgrades to his property and that in order to establish the new addition on the rear of the building he requires a variance. He noted the new variance will be used for empties and as a receiving center for the beer establishment only. He stated that he is the owner but not the current operator of the building and doesn’t oversee the day to day happenings on the premises. Mr. Martel said the addition would include gutters for proper drainage away from neighboring properties and that if allowed this addition would allow him to remove the FedEx truck that is storing empties as well as the shipping container that is currently placed where the addition would be placed. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Epstein if he could clarify the current situation regarding the truck and containers. Mr. Epstein stated that Mr. Martel is currently in violation and that the truck and shipping container would need to be removed whether or not the addition to the building is allowed. Mr. Epstein presented the Notice of Violation to the board that contained several images of the property. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION Attorney Paul Briggs spoke in opposition to the variance on behlf of his client Mr. Jacobs, who lives next door. Mr. Briggs stated that if the variance was approved then his client would have about 20 inches separating his property from the addition. He handed out several photos that showed his clients car in the driveway and how much space 20 inches would allow them. He argued 5  that if the addition was built as proposed then it would create a significant hardship and nuisance to his client and his ability to sell the property. Mr. Briggs noted that the applicants’ property is currently not maintained as required. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Keller asked the owner if there was another alternative to the addition when it comes to storing the empties and new shipments. Mr. Martel stated that it used to be stored upstairs but that it was not a convenient location and would like to move it to the same level as the store to avoid potential issues. Mr. Keller asked how the addition would be maintained and if it would require venting that might affect the neighbor. Mr. Martel stated that it would not be vented outside and that it would be emptied every 3-4 days. AREA VARIANCE DENIAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, to deny the Area Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. An 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. 5. The alleged hardship is self-created. Motion carried unanimously. E. SANDRA ALOIS requests a Use Variance for 2346 Fairlee St. (48.51-3-23) located in the R-1 Single Family District to construct a multifamily dwelling unit which is not allowed pursuant to Schedule A. Giuseppe Caschera, potential purchaser of the property presented the application on behalf of Sandra Alois who was not present. Mr. Cashera presented the application for a use variance to allow for a Triplex (3 unit) dwelling. The applicant stated that the property is currently a large piece of land that is vacant, unoccupied and would benefit from an increased use that would generate taxes for the City and its neighbors. Mr. Cashera notes that the property would yield a significantly higher monetary return as a 3 unit than as a single family which is what’s currently allowed. The applicant mentioned that building a new three unit apartment building on this lot would improve the neighborhood and it would incentivize other neighbors to make upgrades to their homes as well. Mr. Cashera stated that the use variance is a condition of the sale and that he has avoided creating his own hardship. 6  PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION Jacqueline Hurd, a nearby resident spoke in opposition to the variance. She stated that the proposal does not meet any of the four conditions necessary to be approved. She stressed that the applicant had not met the criteria for a reasonable return and self-created hardship. Tryllys Filkins of Perry St raised concerns with increasing the amount of units allowed on such a narrow and quiet street. Ms. Filkins noted that there may also be issues of rain water runoff if the lot is fully developed. Richard and Cheryle Rodenmacher of Fairlee Ave stated their opposition to the application. They were concerned that it would produce additional, unwanted traffic to already narrow street. Increasing the lot from single family to a 3 family would change the character of the neighborhood in their opinion. Dina Marotta of Turner Ave spoke against the use variance. Ms. Marotta shared her concern for the ederly neighbors and the increase in traffic and noise that may result from a 3 unit being allowed. Ms. Marotta stated that the area is zoned single family for a reason and that it should remain that way. AREA VARIANCE DENIAL Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Ms. Mary D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to deny the Area Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. An 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. 5. The alleged hardship is self-created. Motion carried unanimously. F. WILLIAM P CIAMPOLILLO requests an Area Variance for 529 Alexander St. (30.84-1-7) located in the R-1 Single-Family District to construct an accessory structure with no setback where a 3 ft. rear yard setback is required pursuant to §264-29D(2)a. William Ciampolillo, owner of the property, presented the application. Mr. Ciampolillo stated that he is looking for a rear yard setback variance so that he can construct a new building for family gatherings. He would like the building to be placed where it is as it allows easier access for his entire family 7  including older family members. This building would be placed adjacent to the current shed and in-line with the boundaries of the house. Mr. Ciampolillo mentioned that he has reached out to his neighbors and has gotten comlete support to finish the project. The applicant explained that it has a rather small footprint and that he only became aware of the setback issue when Mr. Epstein explained the regulations when he tried to pull a permit. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Gleason asked Mr. Epstein if the property was large enough to meet the required max lot coverage and green-space. Mr. Epstein confirmed that it would meet the current standards as the applicant has a double lot. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Epstein if the applicant could just move the building up 3 feet to avoid the need for a variance. Mr. Epstein informed the board that if Mr. Ciampolillo moved it any closer to the house it would actually require a larger setback and variance as it would then be considered part of the principle unit. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. Mary 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. G. WALTER C. JASKOT requests Area Variances for 1372 Union Ave. (49.28- 1-18) located in the C-2 Mixed-Use District to allow for a sign that is 12 ft. tall and set back 3 ft. from corner and to establish parking spaces set back 8 ft. from property line where a 7 ft. tall sign setback 20 ft. from corner and a side yard setback of 15 ft. are required pursuant to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Gleason noted that there are 3 separate variances, all for the same property and any votes would be required to address each variance separately. Paul Jean construction manager for CPD presented the application on behalf of the owner Walter Jaskot. 8 Mr. Jean stated that the variances were necessary to make the appropriate changes needed for the gas station. The parking setback requested was a reflection of the existing layout and use of the property. Mr. Jean stated that the sign height and placement required variances so that they will be able to capture the traffic coming down Union St. The applicant felt that a smaller sign and placement farther from the road would unfairly inhibit the gas station from attracting an adequate number of customers. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION Nevin Smith a local resident on Union St, stated that the property has been an eyesore for years. Mr. Smith noted that this intersection could be better served by a more appropriate sign for the entrance to the Union Street Corridor. Mr. Smith noted that the gas station at 1501 Union has a smaller sign that meets regulations and are also located on a corner and that it didn’t appear to negatively impact their ability to attract customers. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL (PARKING SETBACK) 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. AREA VARIANCE DENIAL(SIGN HEIGHT) Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to deny the Area Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. An 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. 5. The alleged hardship is self-created. Motion carried unanimously. 9  AREA VARIANCE DENIAL (SIGN SETBACK) Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to deny the Area Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. An 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. 5. The alleged hardship is 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 8:44 p.m. 10