Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes September 5, 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; David V. Connelly; Fred Clark; Mary D’Alessandro-Gilmore; Brendan Keller; Helene Lester; Avi Epstein, Zoning Officer; Andrew Koldin, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Jennifer Mills, Secretary III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore stated she would be recusing herself from the discussion and voting on New Business items B and C, the James Flacke applications, because she is a board member of Better Neighborhoods, Inc. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES None. V. NEW BUSINESS A. DAMON ANTALEK requests an Area Variance for 1151 Glenwood Boulevard (39.76-1-51), located in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District, to allow for a fence with a height of 8 feet where 6 feet is allowed pursuant to Section 264 Schedule B. Damon Antalek presented the application. Mr. Antalek stated that he has owned the house since 2003 and the fence portions that extend above six feet have been there since before he owned the property. He commented that he believes that the upper fence portions have been there for between thirty and forty years. He explained that he is seeking a variance so that he does not have to tear the fence down. Mr. Connelly asked how long the six-foot high stockade fence is. Mr. Antalek stated that it runs down the whole length of the property. Mr. Gleason asked Mr. Antalek who owns the fence. Mr. Antalek stated that he is not sure, but he believes that it is his neighbor’s. Zoning Officer Epstein noted that as far as the City can determine the fence is on Mr. Antalek’s property. Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore asked Mr. Epstein if there are any permits on file with the City from when the fence was originally installed. Mr. Epstein responded that there are no permits on file, but that the City has only had height requirements for fences since 1984 and has only required permits for fence installation for the past seven years. Mr. Antalek stated that the previous owner of the property had told him that the fence was there when he purchased the house in 1978. Mr. Gleason asked Mr. Epstein how this matter came to be before the Board. Mr. Epstein stated that the Code Inspector observed the fence and reported it to him; once he saw that there was no permit on file for the fence he issued a violation. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Epstein how long the City has been requiring permits for fences. Mr. Epstein replied that they have been required for the past seven years. Ms. Lester asked Mr. Epstein if he was aware of any deed restrictions on fence heights in this area. Mr. Epstein stated that he is not. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION Steven and Betty Hughes presented a written document in opposition to the variance. Mr. And Mrs. Hughes stated that they live at 1151 Glenwood Boulevard and own 1143-45 Glenwood Boulevard, which they purchased for there son to live in. 1143-45 Glenwood is directly adjacent to Mr. Antalek’s property. Mrs. Hughes stated that the fence was installed in 2000 because of a problem between the neighbors. She explained that she had contacted the City with a complaint against Mr. Antalek’s contractor, who was doing some work on the property and leaving trash and debris on her son’s lawn. She pointed out that in the photos she and Mr. Hughes submitted for evidence it is clear that in some places the lattice portion of the fence is 9’2” tall, and in some places, it is even higher. Mrs. Hughes stated that because of the proximity of the fence to her house the water from Mr. Antalek’s roof drains onto the top of the fence and down onto her property, causing water in her basement. Mrs. Hughes referred to the City Code stating the limits on opacity of fences between houses, stating that since it is 100% solid the stockade fence is in violation. She added that it is rotting and in poor repair, as noted in the photos submitted, and that if leaned against it would fall over. She stated that she had offered to remove the entire fence along the property line and replace it with a 2 six-foot chain link fence, which would meet code, but Mr. Antalek never responded to her. Mrs. Hughes noted that this issue has been ongoing, with the City involved, since October 2017. Mr. Keller asked Mrs. Hughes what she would like to see happen. Mrs. Hughes replied that she would like to see the fence come down and she would replace it with the six-foot chain link. Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore asked if Mrs. Hughes was stating that Mr. Antalek installed the fence. Mrs. Hughes stated that she knows that the fence was there before Mr. Antalek owned the property. Mr. Keller asked Mrs. Hughes who she believes owns the fence. Mrs. Hughes stated that Mr. Antalek has stated that he believes she owns it, but she believes he owns it because the good side of the fence is facing her property. She added that if Mr. Antalek states in front of the Board that the fence is hers she will take it down and install the new chain link fence as soon as possible. Mr. Keller asked Mrs. Hughes when she and her husband purchased the property. She stated that they bought it in 2009. Mr. Keller asked Mrs. Hughes how she knows when the fence was installed. Mrs. Hughes stated that she and her husband have lived across the street since 1984. She added that both the stockade fence and the lattice pieces were put up in 2000 as the result of a dispute between the neighbors. She stated that code enforcement should have addressed the opacity of the fence when they inspected but they did not. Mr. Hughes commented that the fence is clearly much higher than the 8’ requested, as evidence by the photos he and his wife submitted. He added that the fence is in very poor condition and could in fact fall over towards his property at any time. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Epstein noted that if the fence is within 5’ of either of the houses it cannot be completely solid. Mr. Gleason asked him what he had observed about the condition of the fence. Mr. Epstein stated that some places look worse than others, but he did observe some rotting portions. Mr. Connelly asked Mr. Epstein if there had been any modifications made to the fence recently. Mr. Epstein stated that there was no evidence of any modifications visible to him, but he did not inspect the entire fence. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Epstein if the fence is within the Board’s jurisdiction if it was installed before there were any permits required or any height restrictions. Mr. Epstein stated that as far as he can tell the fence does not pre-date 1984, when the height restriction began. Ms. Lester asked him if the fence is higher than eight feet in some areas. Mr. Epstein stated that it is, but that the variance could be modified to allow the existing height if the Board members thought it appropriate. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Epstein if there are any violations forthcoming regarding the opacity of 3  the fence. Mr. Epstein stated that if the violations can be verified there will be. Mr. Gleason asked what would have to be verified. Mr. Epstein responded that the violation relates to the distance between the fence and the house. Mr. Keller stated that he couldn’t fully support granting a variance when there are possibly other violations pending. Mr. Connelly stated that the Board can only act on the application currently in front of them. Ms. Lester asked if the Board had granted variances for fence height in the past. Mr. Connelly stated that he could recall a few other times, but the variances were for commercial properties or in more commercial areas. Mr. Gleason stated that the variances should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and they must consider the application before them. Mr. Connelly agreed. 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. B. JAMES FLACKE requests Area Variances for 112 Prospect Street (39.74-3-22.11), located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential Zoning District, to allow for a minimum lot area of 3,420 sf where 4,500 sf is required, a maximum lot coverage of 36% where 30% is allowed, a 4’ side yard setback where 5’ is required and 2 parking spaces where 3 are required pursuant to the zoning ordinance. Raymond Koch, the surveyor for the project, presented the application. Mr. Koch showed the Board a copy of a 2006 survey of the property, showing the original two two-family residences that stood there. He noted that these buildings have been removed. Mr. Koch explained that Better Neighborhoods, Inc. plans to build one two-family residence and one single- family residence on the site. He stated that one will face Prospect Street and the other will face Windsor, and both will have on-site parking, unlike the previous buildings which used on-street parking. Mr. Koch stated that the new layout of the site will better utilize the land and will decrease the density of the site. 4 Mr. Keller asked how many bedrooms each unit will have. Mr. Koch stated that they will all be two-bedroom units. Mr. Connelly asked if the properties had previously belonged to the Capital Region Land Bank. Mr. Koch stated that they had. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR James Flacke, Executive Director of Better Neighborhoods Inc. spoke in favor of the application. He explained that previously there had been five dwelling units on the site and that number will be reduced to three. He stated that BNI has received a grant to own and operate the units for thirty years and they will maintain the buildings and grounds. He added that the units will be rented to people of modest means, with income levels similar to other residents of the area. Mr. Gleason asked if this rental model is new for BNI. Mr. Flacke stated that it is, as previously they would rehab properties and sell them. David Hogenkamp of the Capital Region land Bank and Metroplex Development Authority spoke in favor of the application. He stated that this project will help move the revitalization of the neighborhood forward and will be a great addition to the area. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Gleason stated that he could see no drawbacks to the project. He added that it will be a positive project for the neighborhood and BNI has a proven excellent track record. The other Board Members agreed. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to approve the Area Variances 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 any other 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 lot line adjustment will be approved by the City Engineering Department. 2. The final survey and site plans will be submitted to the County. Motion carried, with Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore recusing herself from consideration of the application. 5 C. JAMES FLACKE requests Area Variances for 112 Prospect Street (39.74-3-22.11), located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential Zoning District, to allow for a single-family home with a minimum lot area 1,980 sf where 2,250 sf is required, and a maximum lot coverage of 36% where 30% is allowed pursuant to Section 264 Schedule C. This item was discussed and considered together with New Business Item B. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR Please see Item B above. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Please see Item B above. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to approve the Area Variances 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 lot line adjustment will be approved by the City Engineering Department. 2. The final survey and site plans will be submitted to the County. Motion carried, with Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore recusing herself from consideration of the application. D. PAUL MATARAZZO requests an Area Variance for 645 Nott Street (39.58-1-11.13) located in the C-2 Mixed Use Zoning District, to allow for the property to have 12.4% permeable surfaces where 20% is required allowed pursuant to Section 2764 Schedule C. Loren Rucinski, Director of Facilities and Planning for Union College, Emily Kohent from Architecture+, and Dominick Arico of CT Male Associate presented the application. 6 Mr. Rucinski explained that Union College has purchased this former bank property and plans to use it for their Center for Campus Safety and as the main headquarters of the campus security department. He explained that some additional parking has been added to the site to accommodate staff vehicles, particularly at shift change times, and the campus security vehicle fleet. Mr. Arico reviewed the site plan and explained how the parking has been reconfigured. He noted that there is a three-foot easement along the western property line to allow for enough space for the neighbor’s driveway. Mr. Gleason stated that he believes that there is a storm sewer on the property and asked Mr. Arico if he is sure that it is in proper working order. Mr. Arico stated that he does not see a sewer noted on the site plan but there could be one there. Mr. Gleason stated that he was pointing it out since it would speak to mitigating any flooding issues that might result from the increased impervious surface percentage being proposed. Zoning Officer Epstein stated that he is not aware of any flooding issues on the site. Mr. Arico noted that green space on the site will be increased by 20% and will be made more visible from Nott Street and Van Vranken Avenue. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR Patrick McNeil of 1522-24 Carrie Street spoke in favor of the proposal, stating that he believes that it will be a good use of the property and that Union will maintain it well. He read for the record a letter he had received from Union College stating that they will install a solid fence at his property line to help shield vehicles’ headlights at night. Gennaro Ruzza of 1526-28 Carrie Street also spoke in favor of the application, stating that he believes that it will be a good use of the property and that Union College will be a good neighbor. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Connelly stated that he believes that this will be a great use for this property and that he is happy to see the added green space. He noted that he does not believe the small addition of impervious surface will cause any issues. The other Board Members agreed. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, to approve the Area Variances 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. 7  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. VII. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. 8