Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes July 3, 2018 I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. 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; Mary D’Alessandro-Gilmore; Brendan Keller; Helene Lester; Avi Epstein, Zoning Officer; Ashlynn Savarese, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Jennifer Mills, Secretary EXCUSED: David V. Connelly, Jr. III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore stated she would be recusing herself from the discussion and voting on items B, C, and D, the Adam Driscoll applications, because she is a board member of Better Neighborhoods, Inc. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES None. V. NEW BUSINESS A. JEFF BUELL requests an Area Variance for 144 Clinton Street (39.72-4- 26), located in the C-4 Downtown Zoning District to provide 0 parking spaces where 15 are required pursuant to Schedule F. Damien Pinto-Martin presented the application. Mr. Pinto-Martin briefly reviewed the application and explained that the building covers almost the entire property, and thus there is no room for on- site parking. He added that it is the philosophy of the developers to promote walkable city living, and thus they do not feel that it is necessary to offer a parking space with the apartment rentals. Mr. Pinto-Martin stated that there  are several parking lots within an approximately five-minute walk from the building that offer monthly parking rental. Mr. Keller asked what the current use of the building is. Mr. Pinto-Martin responded that it is accounting offices on the first floor, with the current owner living on the third floor and the second floor vacant. Mr. Keller asked if the applicant is proposing a retail use for the first floor. Mr. Pinto-Martin stated that they are planning a mercantile concept, which would have smaller retail vendors sharing a large space. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR David Hogenkamp, project director for Metroplex Development Authority, spoke in favor of the application. Mr. Hogenkamp stated that Metroplex has many parking lots downtown where space could be rented if necessary. He explained that not requiring parking in the downtown area promotes developing a walkable city. He also noted that he believes that residential redevelopment will be a very good use of this building. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Ms. D’Alessandro stated that the Board has approved many similar variances and she has no problem supporting this proposal in a downtown district. Mr. Gleason agreed. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Keller, 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. B. ADAM DRISCOLL requests a Use Variance for 104 Irving Street (39.82- 2-44.2), located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential Zoning District, to allow for a 25-unit apartment building which is not permitted pursuant to Schedule A. Michael Bianchino of Lansing Engineering and Geoff MacDonald of 3t Architecture presented the application. 2 Mr. Bianchino gave a brief review of the site plans included in the application. Mr. MacDonald reviewed the elevation and building design drawings. He noted that there will be no significant changes made to the exterior of the school, and that the developers are working with the State Historic Preservation Office to develop the final designs, as the school is a building of historic significance. Mr. Gleason reminded the applicants and the members of the public present that there would be no vote taken on the applications at this meeting. He explained that the lead agency for SEQR review would be established and then the required comment period for interested parties would commence. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR David Hogenkamp, Executive Director of The Capital Region Land Bank, spoke in favor of the proposal. He stated that this has been a very difficult site to find the best use for, and that the Land Bank believes this project will have a positive impact on the neighborhood. James Flacke of Better Neighborhoods Inc. spoke in favor of the application. He stated that Schenectady has a great need for affordable housing that is not sub-standard, as is much of the current housing stock in the City. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION Christal Powell, resident of 812 Eastern Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposal, citing concerns of bringing too many residents into the neighborhood and exacerbating the current problems of crime and vandalism. Bernice Whiting, resident of 812 Eastern Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that the convenience store in the area has brought crime, noise, litter and other issues to the neighborhood and she believes that bringing in more residents will only make things worse. Agnes Villano, of 810 Eastern Avenue, spoke in opposition to the application, citing concerns with the parking problems in the area and other quality of life issues. Mary Riker, resident of 105 Irving Street, spoke in opposition to the proposal. She stated that when events are held at the Renaissance Hall there are not enough parking spaces in their lot and the surrounding streets become clogged, a problem that she believes will only get worse with the new development. Chris Spencer, resident of 1306 Union Street, stated that although he is familiar with the development company and feels that they have a very good reputation he does not believe that the applicants have met the specific criteria required for the variances to be granted. He stated that he believes that the zoning of the entire Eastern Avenue Corridor should be studied, as opposed to granting numerous variances for specific projects as they develop. 3  Mark Grainer, resident of 1300 Union Street, spoke in opposition to the project, stating that he believes that there will be significant parking congestion and quality of life issues if a development of this size is allowed. Nancy Towler, resident of 102 Irving Street, also expressed concerns about parking and neighborhood noise and congestion. Karrie Rutecki, resident of 107 Irving Street, spoke in opposition to the project, citing concerns about increased crime and littering. Regina Baker, resident of 105 Irving Street, spoke in opposition to the project, citing concerns about increased density and crime. Ralph Dickershaid, resident of 111 Degraff Street, spoke in opposition to the project, stating that he believes it will bring too many new residents to a small area and add strain to an already struggling neighborhood. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Keller asked the applicants to explain the purpose of the proposed sign at 104 Irving Street. Mr. Bianchino responded that it will identify the apartment building. MOTION TO TABLE Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Clark, to allow Metroplex Development Authority to serve as Lead Agency for SEQR for this project, and to table the applications until the required SEQR comment period for interested parties is closed. Motion carried, with Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore recusing herself from consideration of the applications. C. ADAM DRISCOLL requests Area Variances for 104 Irving Street (39.82- 2-44.2), located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential Zoning District for a building height of 49ft where 35ft is allowed, minimum lot area of 24,829sqft where 56,192sqft is required, maximum lot coverage of 35.2% where 30% is allowed, front setback of 4.3ft where 20ft is required, rear setback of 4.7ft where 27ft is required, side yard setback of 6.1ft where 12ft is required, accessory setback of 35ft where 60ft is required, 27 parking spaces where 37 spaces are required, 0% parking lot landscaping where 5% is required, and a 32sqft sign where 1sqft is allowed. See above discussion and action taken for Item B. D. ADAM DRISCOLL requests Area Variances for 817 (39.82-3-25), 819 (39.82-3-24.1), and 823 (39.82-3-22.1) Eastern Avenue located in the C-2 and R-3 Zoning Districts, for a minimum lot area of 27,437sqft where 37,500sqft is required, 83.3% max impervious surface where 80% is allowed, 5.8ft parking setback where 15ft is required, 37 parking spaces where 57 are required, 5.8ft of perimeter landscaping where 10ft is 4  required, 0% parking landscaping where 5% is required, and a 32sqft sign where 25sqft is allowed pursuant to the zoning code. See above discussion and action taken for Item B. E. USHA SHARMA requests an Area Variance for 1306 Chrisler Avenue (49.64-1-13), located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential Zoning District, to allow for a carport that is 384sqft where 116sqft is allowed pursuant to Schedule C. Reshma Sharma presented the application on behalf of her mother. Ms. Sharma explained that her mother would like to build a carport in the backyard to give some cover from the sun when she hosts parties and family gatherings and to hold religious prayer services. Mr. Keller asked her to explain what the religious services entail. Ms. Sharma stated that a priest would come to the house and hold the service for up to one hundred people. Mr. Keller asked how often these services are conducted. Ms. Sharma responded that they take place once or twice a year. Mr. Gleason stated that he does not feel comfortable stating that the proposed structure is for religious services if they happen so infrequently, but rather the Board should consider that it will be used for gatherings of people throughout the year. The other Board members agreed. Mr. Keller asked Zoning Officer Epstein to explain how the allowed square footage is calculated. Mr. Epstein stated that because it is within ten feet of the main dwelling it is based on a percentage of the square footage of the house. Mr. Keller asked why the allowed size was not suitable. Ms. Sharma stated that it would not be sufficient space for the intended use. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Gleason stated that the Board has reviewed many carport applications recently but none in the backyard, and none of this size. Mr. Keller stated that he is not comfortable with the size of the proposed structure and feels that it is unreasonable in relation to what is allowed, as the request is for over three times the allowed square footage. Mr. Gleason agreed, stating that he does not feel that he could justify why a variance should be granted, which is the responsibility of the Board when deciding in favor of an application. Mr. Keller agreed. Mr. Epstein reminded the Board that they are not considering the use of the structure, just whether the size is justified. Mr. Keller stated 5  that he understands, and that he believes that due to the size the variance is substantial, and could also be achieved by another method with the use of a temporary tent. He added that he believes that the hardship is self-created, and that a structure of this size could have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The other Board Members agreed. AREA VARIANCE DENIAL Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Ms. Lester, 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. Keller, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. 6