Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes November 7, 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; Mary D’Alessandro- Gilmore; Helene Lester; Avi Epstein, Zoning Officer; Jennifer Mills, Secretary EXCUSED: Brendan Keller ABSENT: Fred Clark III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK Mr. Connelly stated that he would be recusing himself from the consideration of New Business Item E, the Jeremy and Jacqueline Hughes Area Variance application. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Connelly, seconded by Commissioner Lester, to accept the Minutes of the September 5, 2018 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. V. NEW BUSINESS - APPLICATIONS A. BONNIE GOODWIN requests a Use Variance for 764 ½ Eastern Avenue (39.74-3-18), located in the R-2 Two Family Residential Zoning District, to allow a change from a mixed-use property to fully commercial restaurant which is not allowed pursuant to Schedule A of the Zoning Code. Bonnie Goodwin presented the application. Ms. Goodwin explained that she bought the property without being able to conduct an interior inspection, and she had not been aware of the extent of damage that had been done to the building by a previous fire. She stated that the entire building has had to be reframed from the bricks in and she presented before and after photos of the work that has been completed. She explained that initially she planned to have a small apartment upstairs, with a separate rear entrance and staircase, however, as renovations progressed it became clear that there would not be room for the additional staircase, and when it also became clear that there would be issues with having an apartment above the restaurant kitchen (due to hood/venting issues) she stated that she hastily decided not to include the apartment, unaware that this would impact the use variance that had previously been issued. Ms. Goodwin apologized for the oversight and stated that it was never her intent to violate the mixed-use variance. She noted that the building is directly across the street from a busy corner market, and that the restaurant plan is still the same as was originally presented. Mr. Connelly asked Ms. Goodwin how big the apartment would have been. Ms. Goodwin stated that it was approximately 500-600 square feet. Mr. Connelly asked what the space will now be used for. Ms. Goodwin stated that it will be an event space for the restaurant, and that there will be not be a second stairway constructed. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR David Hogenkamp, representing the Community Land Bank, spoke in favor of the project and entered a letter of support into the record. He stated that the project supports the goals of the neighborhood, and that he does not believe that this modification in the building use will have any negative impact on the surrounding community. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Connelly stated that he does not believe that the modified use variance would have a negative effect on the neighborhood. The other Board Members agreed. SEQR RESOLUTION Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to adopt a negative declaration on this unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA based upon the review and assessment of the Short Environmental Assessment Forms Parts 1 and 2, with the negative declaration being set forth in Part 3 of the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Motion carried unanimously. 2  USE VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to approve the Use Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. The hardship is due to unforeseen circumstances that were revealed during construction. 2. The applicant cannot realize a reasonable rate of return if required to keep the property as a mixed-use structure. The property has already been granted a Use Variance (for mixed use) on the basis that a reasonable return was not obtainable as a residential unit alone. 3. The variance will not alter the substantial character of the neighborhood. “Recruit a family-style restaurant for the neighborhood” is one of the tasks specifically stated in the Eastern Avenue Neighborhood Plan (2020 Comprehensive Plan). 4. The hardship related to this property is unique. Prior to 2008 the property was zoned in a manner that would have allowed this use. The property is located on the line that separates residential and commercial zoning. And with the following conditions: 1. The project must be granted site plan approval by the City Planning Commission. 2. In order to meet the impervious surface requirement, the three parking spaces must remain permeable. Motion carried unanimously. B. BONNIE GOODWIN requests Area Variances for 764 1/2 Eastern Avenue (39.74-3-18), located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential Zoning District, to allow for a deck with a setback of 18’ where 25’ is required, a 9-sf sign where 6 sf is allowed and 5 parking spaces where 7 is required pursuant to Schedule C, Schedule I, and Schedule F of the Zoning Code. Bonnie Goodwin presented the application. Ms. Goodwin explained that the purpose of the deck is mainly for the chef’s herb garden, and that they plan to have 2 or 3 small tables for patron seating as well but have not decided yet if they will offer table service on the deck. She stated that the deck was originally constructed to allow for more parking as well, and she had not been aware that it was too close to the neighbor’s property. She noted that as soon as she became aware that the deck did not have the proper setbacks, they reduced its size. Ms. Goodwin stated that if the deck is allowed, they plan to add additional supports to ensure that it is safe. Ms. Goodwin noted that there is some on street parking available and that they anticipate most customers to be walking and not driving. She stated that the 3 variance for the parking will help to lessen the need for additional paving on the property. Zoning Officer Epstein asked Ms. Goodwin to address the sign. Ms. Goodwin stated that the sign is laser-cut mahogany and that she had not realized that it was longer than what is allowed. Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore asked if the sign has lighting attached to it. Ms. Goodwin stated that they would like to light the sign but have not decided on the lighting design yet. She stated that they most likely will use gooseneck lights. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR David Hogenkamp, representing the Community Land Bank, entered a letter of support into the record. He stated that the project supports the goals of the neighborhood, and that he does not believe that these modifications to the property will have any negative impacts on the surrounding community. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Connelly stated that he does not believe that the deck would be a nuisance in the neighborhood. Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore stated that she had no objection to the sign, as it appears to fit properly where it has been attached to the building and is to scale with the rest of the exterior design. Ms. Lester stated that the request for a parking variance is in line with similar variances previously granted. SEQR RESOLUTION Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to declare the project a Type 2 SEQR action, with no significant impacts on the environment. Motion carried unanimously. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, 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. And with the following condition: 4  1. Building permits and sign permits are required by Code Enforcement. Motion carried unanimously. C. KEVIN KONIG requests an Area Variance for 122 Park Avenue (50.79- 1-40.11), located in the R-3 Multi-Family Residential Zoning District, to install a 10’ tall chain link fence where the max height of 6’ is allowed pursuant to Schedule D of the Zoning Code. Jameson Phillips of Keller Construction presented the application. Mr. Phillips explained that the fence will be installed along the property line that is shared with Schenectady Municipal Golf Course. He stated that the fence will be black chain link and will blend well with the wood line that it runs through. Mr. Gleason asked why the applicants are seeking permission to install a fence of this height. Mr. Phillips stated that he believes that it is a state requirement for this type of facility. Zoning Officer Epstein stated that he is unaware of any state requirement for a 10’ fence. Mr. Connelly asked if the fence will enclose the back portion of the property. Mr. Phillips stated that it will abut a section of 5’ fence on both sides. Ms. Lester asked why there is a sudden need for a fence of this height if the property has been operated in the same manner for some time. Mr. Connelly stated that he suspects that there have been issues with kids from the property going onto the golf course property. Mr. Epstein stated that it is his understanding that there have been some issues, and for safety and security purposes the children’s home would like to install a fence that children will most likely not be able to climb. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR Rich Girardi of Northern Rivers spoke in favor of the application. He stated that the purpose of the fence is to act as a deterrent to keep children from accessing the golf course, and that the fence will be virtually invisible from the street. He added that they believe that the children might try to climb a 6’ fence, but not a 10’ fence. Mr. Girardi explained that eventually they would like to enclose the entire back portion of the property with the 10’ fence but are phasing the project due to the expense. He noted that the fence will be across the flat part of the rear property line, and that there is a downward grade at the ends of the fence which would make using those areas as access points to the golf course unlikely. Mayor Gary McCarthy submitted a letter in favor of the application. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION 5 Mr. Connelly asked if there is a fence in this location now. Mr. Girardi stated that there is not. Mr. Connelly asked if a large portion of the brush will be removed to install the fence. Mr. Girardi stated that they plan to only minimally disturb the landscape and would like the fence to blend in well with the tree line. Mr. Connelly stated that his only concern would be that the fence and golf course would be more visible from Park Avenue. Mr. Girardi stated that someone standing on Park could see only a very small portion of the fence, and he believes that that portion would be even less visible because it will be black chain link. Mr. Connelly stated that he understands the reason for the fence and has no objection, since it will be mostly out of sight from the street. Ms. Lester stated that her only concern is that the applicants understand that if in the future they wish to add more 10’ fence they would have to apply for an additional variance. Mr. Epstein stated that this could be made a condition of the decision. Mr. Connelly stated that the Board has granted variances for fence height in the past, in cases where commercial properties abutted residential ones. Mr. Connelly stated that he would support granting the variance for this unique case, but that it should be made clear that the variance is specific to this property and does not set a precedent. The Board Members agreed. SEQR RESOLUTION Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to declare the project a Type 2 SEQR action, with no significant impacts on the environment. Motion carried unanimously. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL 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. And with the following conditions: 1. The area variance approval is specific to this property. 2. If at any time in the future the applicant decides to add more of the fence, or any other fence that does not meet code, he must return to the Board with a new application. 6  Motion carried unanimously. D. PHILLIP RUGGIERO requests an Area Variance for 515 Union Street (39.65-1-26) located in the C-4 Downtown Zoning District, to allow for an 8’ fence where a max height of 6’ is allowed pursuant to Schedule D of the Zoning Code. Phillip Ruggiero presented the application. Mr. Ruggiero explained that there is a large patio space behind the restaurant, and he would like to extend the existing six-foot fence that abuts the side neighbors’ properties to eight feet. He stated that the front and rear fences will remain at six feet, but for security and noise abatement issues he would like the fence on the sides to be higher. He added that it would also afford his neighbors more privacy. Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore asked if the patio has been installed yet. Mr. Ruggiero stated that it has not been. Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore asked if the fence has been installed. Mr. Ruggiero stated that one section of it has been, because he had not been aware that the height limit is 6’ according to City Code. Mr. Connelly stated that he believes that the fence around the Van Dyke patio is 8’. He asked if the neighbors were residential properties. Mr. Ruggiero stated that they are commercial – an office space and a liquor store. He added that he has spoken with his neighbors and they have no objection to the fence. Zoning Officer Epstein asked if the fence will interfere with the sight lines into the alley. Mr. Ruggiero stated that it will not, as it will not extend back that far and there will still be room for parking between the fence and the alley. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Ms. Lester stated that she has no objection to the fence, as it is not visible from the street and the neighbors have no objection. The other Board Members agreed. SEQR RESOLUTION Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to declare the project a Type 2 SEQR action, with no significant impacts on the environment. Motion carried unanimously. 7  AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. Lester, 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. And with the following condition: 1. The area variance approval is specific to this property. Motion carried unanimously. E. JEREMY & JACQUELINE HUGHES request an Area Variance for 268 Bradley Boulevard (50.45-1-14) located in the R-1 Single Family Zoning District, to install a 6’ vinyl fence with a 2’ setback where a 4’ setback is required pursuant to Schedule D of the Zoning Code. Jacqueline Hughes appeared before the Board. Mr. Gleason explained that because Mr. Connelly is recusing himself from consideration of the application there were not enough Board members present to act on the application at the meeting, but he invited her to present the application if she so wished. Ms. Hughes briefly reviewed the application, explaining that their property has no backyard but a very large side yard, which they would like to fence in both for the safety of their dog and for added privacy and security. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION No action was taken by the board as this was a preliminary review. F. JEWAN TILOKEE requests a Use Variance for 1213 First Avenue (49.38-2-13) located in the R-2 Two-Family Zoning District, to allow for a 6-unit multi-family property which is not permitted pursuant to Schedule A of the Zoning Code. 8 Gilan Moses, attorney for the applicant, presented the application. Ms. Moses explained that Mr. Tilokee is under contract to purchase the property from the City. She stated that the property, formerly a six-unit building, is in severe disrepair and will take significant renovations to bring up to code. She added that the building is not financially viable as a two- family, and that her client is a well-know landlord who maintains his properties well. Ms. Moses added that the hardship is not self-created because Mr. Tilokee is under contract to buy the property but does not yet own it. Mr. Gleason asked Zoning Officer Epstein if the property had been a legal six- unit building. Mr. Epstein stated that it most likely was as this was a multi- family area before the rezoning in 2008, but he is not certain. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION Dennis Baldwin, resident of 1218 Second Street, spoke in opposition to the application and submitted for the record petitions against the proposal signed by over thirty neighbors. Mr. Baldwin stated that the property has been a severe blight on the neighborhood and was condemned by the City in the past. He added that he is surprised that the City is selling it as opposed to demolishing it. Mr. Baldwin stated that the property has been flooded extensively and has been a haven for drug dealers and users, squatters, and other criminals. He added that he believes that there is asbestos in the building, and that he is certain that there is mold present as a result of the flooding issues. Tom Oliver, resident of 1235 First Avenue, spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that his 98-year-old neighbor asked him to come speak on her behalf as well. Mr. Oliver echoed Mr. Baldwin’s concerns and stated that the property has been a problem in the neighborhood for years. He added that he does not believe that the density of a six-unit building would be acceptable in the neighborhood of mostly single- and two-family homes. Pat Smith, President of the Mont Pleasant Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the application. She stated that the amount of money required to properly renovate the building would make it financially unfeasible to rent at going rates and added that the density would not be in keeping with the neighborhood. David Hogenkamp, representing the Community Land Bank, commented that the Land Bank has secured a grant for demolishing derelict properties in Mont Pleasant. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR Amar Mohabir, nephew of the property owner and property manager for his uncle, spoke in favor of the proposal, stating that the building would be well- maintained and would improve the neighborhood rather than detracting from it. He added that a family member would be living on the property, and that 9  there is a large enough parking area in the rear of the building to accommodate the tenants’ cars, thus keeping them off the street. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore asked what the proposed rents would be for the units and how many bedrooms they would have. Mr. Mohabir stated that the 3 -bedroom units would rent for approximately $900 each per month. Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore asked what the exterior of the building will look like. Mr. Mohabir stated that there will be no major changes to the exterior, but that it will be cleaned up. Mr. Connelly stated that he is concerned to hear that the building was condemned by the City in the past. Mr. Gleason stated that he feels that the applicant has not presented enough information about what he plans to do with the building. The other Board Members agreed. Mr. Connelly noted that the applicant does not own the property yet. Mr. Epstein stated that the board should consider the criteria for granting a variance, adding that although the applicant does not own the property, yet he has put himself into the situation of needing a variance. SEQR RESOLUTION Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to adopt a negative declaration on this unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA based upon the review and assessment of the Short Environmental Assessment Forms Parts 1 and 2, with the negative declaration being set forth in Part 3 of the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Motion carried unanimously. USE VARIANCE DENIAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. Lester, to deny the Use Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. The applicant can realize a reasonable return with the allowed uses. 2. The alleged hardship relating to the property is not unique and applies to a significant portion of the district or neighborhood. 3. The required variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 4. The alleged hardship has been self-created. Motion carried unanimously. G. BRENDAN NALLY requests a Use Variance for 1687 Avenue A (39.51-2- 48) located in the R-2 Two Family Zoning District, to allow for a commercial hair and art studio which is not an allowed use pursuant to 264-9B, Schedule A of the Zoning Code. 10 Brendan Nally presented the application. Mr. Nally explained that he had recently purchased the property from the City and would like to restore the commercial unit to the first floor with two residential units on the second floor. He stated that his fiancé would like to run her hair salon and art studio from the commercial space, where she would display her art and hold art classes. Mr. Connelly asked about parking on the site. Zoning Officer Epstein stated that there is one space on the property, but the applicants would have to return for a parking variance if the Use Variance is granted. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR Annie McLaughlin, fiancé of Mr. Nally, spoke in favor of the application, stating that she believes that the business will have a positive impact on the neighborhood. Vincent Giordano, resident of the neighboring property at 1685 Avenue A, spoke in favor of the application, stating that the property has been a blight on the neighborhood and Mr. Nally has successfully renovated other properties in the neighborhood. Fran Giordano, resident of 1685 Avenue A, spoke in favor of the application, echoing her husband’s comments. James Nally, Mr. Nally’s father, expressed his support of the application. Penny Nally, Mr. Nally’s mother, also spoke in support of the project. David Hogenkamp, of the Community Land Bank, spoke in favor of the applications, stating that the corner location of the building makes it an attractive retail opportunity. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Ms. Lester stated that she believes that this is the type of project that should be promoted within the City, with first-floor commercial spaces and owners living upstairs. SEQR RESOLUTION Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to adopt a negative declaration on this unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA based upon the review and assessment of the Short Environmental Assessment Forms Parts 1 and 2, with the negative declaration being set forth in Part 3 of the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Motion carried unanimously. 11  USE VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. Lester, 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. H. LAUREL BUTTERFIELD requests a Use Variance for 1036 University Place (39.75-1-13) located in the R-2 Two-Family Zoning District, to allow a boardinghouse with 8 individual bedrooms which is not allowed pursuant to 264-9B, Schedule A of the Zoning Code. Eric Connolly presented the application on behalf of his mother, Laurel Butterfield, whom he stated was too ill to attend the meeting. Mr. Connolly stated that the property is between two other homes that are used as boardinghouses, and that he does not believe that they have a negative impact on the neighborhood. He explained that he is a teacher at Schenectady High School and formerly lived in the house with his family, but after they moved his mother was unable to rent the house as a single-family home for enough money to not have a monthly deficit. Ms. Lester asked Zoning Officer Epstein if there are other boardinghouses in the area. Mr. Epstein stated that there are two or three legal properties, and one on the University that has been grandfathered. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR Brendan Nally, resident of 738 Mason Street, spoke in favor of the application. He stated that he knows Mr. Connolly and believes that he maintains his properties very well. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION Gloria Kishton, President of the Schenectady Heritage Foundation, spoke in opposition to the application. She stated that because the Use Variance remains with the property it doesn’t matter how Mr. Connolly maintains the property, as the next owner might not be so conscientious. She added that she does not believe that allowing a boardinghouse is in keeping with the goals of this historic neighborhood, which is in the process of applying for federal designation. Ms. Kishton stated that a property with this density has the potential to negatively impact the neighborhood in a major way. She noted 12 that potentially each tenant could have a car, adding parking concerns to the area as well. Art Edelstein, resident of 1060 University Place, submitted for the record a letter in opposition to the application. Mr. Edelstein stated that rental properties with multiple illegal units have been a major problem for the neighborhood. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Connolly stated that he understands the historic concerns but believes that the property could easily be restored to a single-family home at any time. Mr. Epstein asked about parking available on the property. Mr. Connolly stated that there is one spot in the garage and one spot in front of it, but that when he screens tenants he looks for those with no car. Mr. Epstein stated that if a Use Variance was granted it would have to be conditioned on the applicant receiving a variance for the insufficient parking. Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore asked how long the property had been rented in this manner. Mr. Connolly stated that they had begun transitioning in 2013. Mr. Epstein asked if the applicants had considered the financial viability of the property as a single-family or two-family rental when they were conducting their financial assessment. Mr. Connolly stated that they had but both options would result in a financial deficit each month. Mr. Epstein reminded the Board Members that the test is a reasonable return. Mr. Gleason stated that Ms. Kishton’s point that the variance stays with the property is an important consideration. Mr. Epstein stated that the Board Members should review the criteria for a variance and consider if those criteria have been met. SEQR RESOLUTION Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to adopt a negative declaration on this unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA based upon the review and assessment of the Short Environmental Assessment Forms Parts 1 and 2, with the negative declaration being set forth in Part 3 of the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Motion carried unanimously. USE VARIANCE DENIAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to deny the Use Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. The applicant does not demonstrate an inability to yield a reasonable return for every allowed use. 2. The alleged hardship is not unique as most properties on the street and within the Union Triangle neighborhood are used as single family and two-family houses while facing the same zoning regulations. 13  3. The character of the neighborhood would be altered. Most properties in the Union Triangle have maintained the single- and two-family residential characteristics of the neighborhood. 4. The hardship is self-created. The property was never grandfathered as a boardinghouse and the owner has maintained the property since the rezoning of the district occurred in 2008. Motion carried unanimously. VII. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. 14