Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes June 6, 2018 I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Connelly called the meeting to order at 6:44 p.m. Mr. Connelly stated that he would be chairing the meeting due to the excused absence of Mr. Gleason. Prior to taking the first item on the agenda, Mr. Connelly 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: Fred Clark; David V. Connelly, Jr.; Mary D’Alessandro-Gilmore; Helene Lester; Avi Epstein, Zoning Officer; Ashlynn Savarese, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Jennifer Mills, Secretary EXCUSED: James Gleason, Chair ABSENT: Brendan Keller III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK None. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES None. V. NEW BUSINESS A. ANNA ATANASOVA requests a Use Variance for 1100 Eastern Avenue (39.83-3-2.1), located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District, to allow for a 5-unit apartment building which is prohibited pursuant to Schedule A. Anna Atanasova presented the application.  Ms. Atanasova reviewed her application and the financial operating statement that she had submitted. She stated that using the property as a two-family residence would not be practical or financially feasible. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION Letters in opposition to the application were submitted by the following members of the public: Marie Guttino Thomas & Angelina Kosinski, 13 White Street, Schenectady Joseph Fall, 17 White Street, Schenectady Brian Fall & Carolyn Kolterman-Fall, 15 White Street, Schenectady CONTINUED DISCUSSION Zoning Officer Epstein noted that only two of the units had valid rental certificates in the building’s file, and that he does not believe that the fifth unit on the third floor was ever recognized as legal by the City. Mr. Connelly asked Ms. Atanasova to describe the third-floor apartment. Ms. Atanasova replied that it is a very nice unit, and that she had spoken to the building inspector who had stated that it could be approved as legal if the stairway height is resolved as she has proposed. Mr. Connelly asked Mr. Epstein what the zoning of the property was prior to the 2008 re-zoning. Mr. Epstein stated that it was two-family residential, and that most of the residences in the area are two-family, with a few single-family as well. Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore asked if the property had been vacant for more than one year and therefore needed the variance. Mr. Epstein confirmed that this was the case. USE VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, seconded by Mr. Clark, 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. ROBERT PANACSCI requests Area Variances for 1410 & 1424 Erie Blvd (39.56-3-17.1 & 39.46-3-18), located in the C-4 Downtown District, for a front setback of 46.6 feet where 0 feet is required, 30 parking spaces where 24 is allowed, 4 signs where 2 are permitted, and 2 signs on a single side where only 1 is permitted pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance. 2 Robert Panacsci, Attorney with Young Sommer LLC, and Scott Shearing of Bohler Engineering presented the application. Mr. Panacsci reviewed the application, explaining that the applicants feel that the setback is necessary to allow for a traffic lane between the outdoor eating area and the sidewalk. He stated that they believe that this lane is necessary for circulation around the site, and that the building and parking cannot be configured any other way. He noted that although they are requesting more parking they are also proposing to add much more green space than is currently on the site. Mr. Panacsci stated that the applicants believe that the increased signage is necessary due to the size and location of the property. Ms. Lester asked Zoning Officer Epstein why only 24 parking spaces are allowed. Mr. Epstein responded that the number of spaces is determined by the use of the property, and the proposed outside seating is not counted in that equation. He also noted that minimum parking is encouraged in the downtown district, both to promote pedestrian traffic and density, and to avoid land being used for large impervious parking areas. Mr. Connelly asked if the total square footage of the signs exceeds what is allowed. Mr. Shearing stated that they are not seeking a variance for the total amount of signage, but will work within what is allowed. He added that they feel that the number of signs permitted, if the variance is granted, would allow them to sufficiently meet their goals of branding and identification. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR Ray Gillen, Chairman of Metroplex Development Authority, spoke in favor of the applications. He stated that he believes this project will have a positive impact on the surrounding community and is a very good use of a difficult site. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Epstein noted that the Planning Commission did not support granting the setback variance, but had stated in a letter to the Board that they have no objection to the other variances. Mr. Connelly stated that he has some reservations about the setback, and does not believe that the drive aisle between the outdoor seating and the sidewalk will make the site pedestrian- friendly. Mr. Shearing noted that there will be a stop sign and a crosswalk allowing for pedestrian crossing, as well as a different stamped paving used in that area. AREA VARIANCE APPROVALS 3  Motion by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, seconded by Mr. Clark, to approve the Area Variance to allow for a front setback of 46.6 feet where 0 feet is required, 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. Motion by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, seconded by Mr. Clark, to approve the Area Variance to allow for 30 parking spaces where 24 are allowed, 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. Motion by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, seconded by Mr. Clark, to approve the Area Variance to allow for 4 signs where 2 are permitted and 2 signs on a single side where only 1 is permitted, 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. C. WALTER C. JASKOT requests an Area Variance for 1372 Union Street (49.28-1-18), located in the C-2 Mixed-Use District, to allow for a sign that is 3 feet from the corner where a setback of 20 feet is required pursuant to the Section 264-34 A. Paul Jean presented the application. 4  Mr. Jean reviewed the application and the plans for the new monument sign. He noted that a variance is not being sought for the height of the sign, as they have reduced the height to meet City code. Ms. Lester commented that the proposal appears to be almost exactly what the Board suggested when the applicants had previously appeared before them. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Connelly stated that if the sign were to be placed where it is required without the variance it would impair access to the site, as well as traffic moving around the property. He noted that this location of the sign is similar to where the sign is placed on comparable sites in the neighborhood. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, seconded by Mr. Clark, 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 Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, seconded by Mr. Clark, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. 5