Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes August 1, 2018 I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Connelly called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Connelly stated that he would be chairing the meeting as Mr. Gleason had been called away on an emergency. 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: David V. Connelly; Fred Clark; Mary D’Alessandro-Gilmore; Brendan Keller; Helene Lester; Avi Epstein, Zoning Officer; Ashlynn Savarese, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Jennifer Mills, Secretary EXCUSED: James Gleason, Chair III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore stated she would be recusing herself from the discussion and voting on Old Business items A, B, and C, the Adam Driscoll applications, because she is a board member of Better Neighborhoods, Inc. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES None. V. NEW BUSINESS A. JONATHAN PAUL requests an Area Variance for 4 Grosvenor Square (49.27-3-33), located in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District, to allow for a driveway with no setback from an abutting property line where a 2-foot setback is required pursuant to Section 264-43B (1). Jonathan Paul presented the application. Mr. Paul explained that he would like to install a driveway that goes partially past the front corner of his house. He stated that while he has enough room for the driveway to fit two stacked cars, it will not meet the required setback, but rather would almost directly abut his property line on that side. Mr. Connelly asked Mr. Paul if he currently has a driveway. Mr. Paul stated that he does not. He explained that he had previously parked in a neighbor’s driveway, with his permission, but that property has recently been sold. Mr. Keller asked if the driveway will be wide enough for two cars. Mr. Paul replied that it will not be, but that the cars will be stacked. Mr. Connelly asked if the driveway will be long enough to keep the cars from being parked over the sidewalk. Mr. Paul stated that it will be. Mr. Keller asked if the area to be paved is currently a grass lawn. Mr. Paul stated that it is. Mr. Connelly asked if the new driveway will be asphalt, and if there will be sufficient drainage for any water run-off. Mr. Paul stated that the driveway will be asphalt, but he does not anticipate any drainage issues because it will be sloped towards the street. Mr. Connelly asked if the land is currently sloped. Mr. Paul stated that it is not. Mr. Keller asked if the house on the property is a two-family home. Mr. Paul responded that it is. Ms. Lester asked if the driveway would directly abut the neighbor’s driveway. Mr. Paul stated that it would. He explained that he had spoken to his neighbor and he told Mr. Paul that he has no objection to the driveway. Mr. Paul noted that he had included the neighbor’s name and phone number in the application. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Keller asked Zoning Officer Epstein if there would be any issue with the property exceeding the limit of impervious surface. Mr. Connelly stated that his only issue would be that the driveway should be sloped to avoid water running off on the neighbor’s property, and that perhaps it should be a condition of the variance. Mr. Epstein stated that the property will be within the limits of allowed impervious surface. He noted that before a paving permit is issued the applicant will have to demonstrate that there will be enough slope for drainage. Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore asked Mr. Epstein if he had spoken with the neighbor. Mr. Epstein stated that he had not. 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: 2  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 applicant will obtain a Paving Permit from the City prior to doing the work. 2. The Engineering Department must approve the curb cut prior to the driveway being installed. Motion carried unanimously. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. 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, Geoff MacDonald of 3t Architecture, and Ashley Champion of Nixon Peabody LLP presented the application. Mr. Bianchino gave a brief review of the scope of the project. He noted that this property is unique to the area and has substantial historic significance. Ms. Champion reviewed the materials submitted by her firm. The documents included information explaining the economic viability of the site under other proposed uses. Mr. Keller asked Ms. Champion where the numbers used in the analysis came from. Ms. Champion stated that they were supplied by Home Leasing and are figures that they use when analyzing the financial possibilities for a property. Ms. Champion stated that the property is obviously unique within the neighborhood, as there are no other similar properties within the immediate area. She also noted that the hardship cannot be self-created because the applicants do not yet own the property. Zoning Officer Epstein presented a letter to the Board from City Deputy Corporation Counsel Rachael Ward that confirmed that the City still owns the property. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR Mark Leszczynski, business owner on Eastern Avenue, spoke in favor of the application, stating that the development would have a positive impact on a 3 neighborhood that was once thriving but has seen a very sharp decline in recent years. Bonnie Goodwin, developer and investor in several Eastern Avenue projects, stated that she believes that this development will have a positive impact on the area and will help to draw more investment dollars to the neighborhood. 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. He added that he had recently met with many of the neighbors who expressed their concerns at the June meeting, and that he believes that they have established a good rapport. He noted that many of the neighbors’ concerns are quality of life issues that need to be addressed by the City and Capital Region Land Bank, but the use of this particular property will not have any negative effect on those issues. Adam Driscoll of Home Leasing Inc. spoke in favor of the application. He stated that Home Leasing has undertaken other adaptive reuse projects like this one and they have been very successful. He added that the residents of these homes will have a positive impact on the community. Mary Riker, resident of 105 Irving Street, spoke in favor of the proposal. She stated that while she had been previously opposed to the project, she believes that this will be the best use of the school, and without this development the neighborhood will be left with a vacant, deteriorating property which will continue to invite vandalism and crime into the area. Bob Harvey, President of the Eastern Avenue Neighborhood Association, spoke in favor of the application. He stated that the Association is pleased to see this development in the area, which they believe will have a positive impact on the whole community. James Flacke of Better Neighborhoods Inc. spoke in favor of the application. He stated that Better Neighborhoods chose to work with Home Leasing because they have an excellent track record in the adaptive reuse of properties like this one. He added that BNI believes that this use will be the best one for both the property and the neighborhood. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION 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. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Keller stated that he believed that the applicants had presented a sufficient argument to meet the criteria for a variance. The other Board members agreed. Mr. Epstein noted that because the applicant is under contract to purchase the property from the City and is not currently the owner, the alleged hardship is clearly not self-created. USE VARIANCE APPROVAL 4  Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Clark, to approve the Use Variance based on the following findings of fact, and noting that Metroplex Development Authority, lead agency for SEQR, has issued a Negative Declaration: 1. The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return with the allowed uses, as noted in Exhibit A of the materials submitted by Peabody Nixon, LLP. 2. The alleged hardship relating to the property is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. This is a unique property within the neighborhood with a distinctive set of characteristics including the size of the building, the extent of the environmental contamination, its historic character, and the sustained period of non-use. 3. The requested use variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 4. The alleged hardship has not been self-created, as the applicants are not the current owners of the property. And with the following condition: 1. The project must be granted site plan approval by the City Planning Commission. Motion carried, with Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore recusing herself from consideration of the application. B. 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. Michael Bianchino of Lansing Engineering presented the application. Mr. Bianchino began reviewing the materials submitted explaining each application in detail. Mr. Keller stated that the Board had reviewed the materials and he did not feel that it was necessary for Mr. Bianchino to analyze each variance again. The other Board Members agreed. Mr. Connelly stated that he would like Mr. Bianchino to address the parking variance. Mr. Bianchino stated that an analysis by Home Leasing had demonstrated that they have more than enough parking than will be needed, as their tenants typically do not all own cars. He added that they do not believe 5  that this project will be any different, given its proximity to the bus line and walkable employment opportunities. Mr. Connelly asked why they are requesting a sign that is so large compared to what is allowed. Mr. MacDonald, architect for the project, stated that the sign proposed is what is typically used by Home Leasing, but they are working with the Planning Commission to develop a proposal that will be significantly smaller but still provide adequate identification for the property. Ms. Champion stated that while the sign would be the maximum allowable size her clients are not committed to having a sign that large, particularly since during their preliminary review the Planning Commission had suggested a smaller sign would be more desirable, from their perspective. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Keller stated that he felt that the applicants had made sufficient arguments to prove that the variances were necessary. The other Board Members agreed. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Clark, to approve the Area Variances based on the following findings of fact, and noting that Metroplex Development Authority, lead agency for SEQR, has issued a Negative Declaration: 1. No undesirable change will be produced in the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another method, as addressed in exhibit C of the materials submitted. 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 project must be granted site plan approval by the City Planning Commission. Motion carried, with Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore recusing herself from consideration of the application. C. 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 6 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 required, 0% parking landscaping where 5% is required, and a 32sqft sign where 25sqft is allowed pursuant to the zoning code. Michael Bianchino of Lansing Engineering presented the application. Mr. Bianchino gave a brief review of the project and asked if the Board Members would like him to discuss each variance in detail. Mr. Clark stated that this was not necessary. Mr. MacDonald noted that the design and exterior materials of the building are being revised at the suggestion of the Planning Commission, and more green space is being added to the site. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Zoning Officer Epstein noted that the lots must be consolidated prior to any construction beginning on the site. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Clark, to approve the Area Variances based on the following findings of fact, and noting that Metroplex Development Authority, lead agency for SEQR, has issued a Negative Declaration: 1. No undesirable change will be produced in the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another method, as addressed in Exhibit C of the materials submitted. 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 project must be granted site plan approval by the City Planning Commission. 2. The parcels must be consolidated prior to any construction beginning on the site. 7  Motion carried, with Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore recusing herself from consideration of the application. VII. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Clark, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. 8