Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes December 5, 2018 I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Gleason called the meeting to order at 6:35 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; David V. Connelly; Mary D’Alessandro-Gilmore; Brendan Keller; Avi Epstein, Zoning Officer; Jennifer Mills, Secretary EXCUSED: Helene Lester III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK Mr. Connelly stated that he would be recusing himself from the consideration of New Business Item A, the Jeremy and Jacqueline Hughes Area Variance application. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES None. V. NEW BUSINESS - APPLICATIONS A. 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 presented the application. Ms. Hughes explained that their home has a large side yard, but the backyard is mostly taken up by the garage, so they use their side yard for gardening, recreational space for their dog, and entertaining. She stated that they would like to fence in the yard for added security and privacy, as there is quite a bit of foot traffic on the street, which they enjoy, but they would like to have a buffer between their yard and the public walking by. She noted that they had amended the application to include a fence that is all white, unlike the white and gray design included with their original application. Mr. Keller asked if the fence will be solid for the entire six-foot height. Ms. Hughes stated that it would be. She noted that the fence will be set back far enough so that it will not interfere with ay traffic sight lines. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Keller asked Zoning Officer Epstein if the only issue requiring a variance is the setback. Mr. Epstein confirmed this. Mr. Keller stated that given the configuration of the property and because the fence will not interfere with any traffic sight lines, he would have no objection to the variance. The other Board Members agreed. SEQR RESOLUTION Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to declare the project a Type 2 SEQR action, with no significant impacts on the environment. Motion carried, with Mr. Connelly recusing himself from the vote. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Clark, to approve the Area Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. The variance will not create undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Many of the properties within this neighborhood have 6-foot tall fences for privacy. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved through alternative means without losing additional space in their yard. 3. The variance is not substantial. The applicant is asking for a difference of 2 feet, while keeping the fence 53 feet from the corner. 4. No adverse environmental impact will be caused. The fence will not impact any natural vegetation or cause additional water runoff. 5. The hardship is self-created. The applicant proposes to knowingly install a fence that doesn’t meet the zoning code. Motion carried, with Mr. Connelly recusing himself from the vote. 2 B. GLORIA HERMAN requests an Area Variance for 1712 Union Street (50.39-2-10), located in the C-2 Mixed Use Zoning District, to allow for a second residential unit with a lot size of 5,494 SQFT where 5,500 SQFT is required pursuant to Schedule C of the Zoning Code. Gloria Herman presented the application. Ms. Herman explained that she would like to have a second residential unit in the building, which also has a business on the first floor. She presented Zoning Officer Epstein with a copy of the survey of her property, which shows that she is six square feet short of the required minimum lot size. She noted that there is more than the required on-site parking for the two residential units. Mr. Connelly asked if the second residential unit was previously occupied. Mr. Epstein stated that he believes that it was, prior to the 2008 rezoning, which imposed the minimum lot size. He stated that because the second unit had not been occupied within a year of the rezoning, it lost its grandfathered status. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR Mary Lou Aragosa, owner of Ferri Formals and Bridals on Union Street, spoke in favor of the application, stating that she does not believe that the second residential unit will have any negative impact on the surrounding community. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Gleason stated that he believes that six square feet it such a small area that it isn’t really a significant issue. The other Board Members agreed. SEQR RESOLUTION Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, to declare the project a Type 2 SEQR action, with no significant impacts on the environment. Motion carried unanimously, with Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore absent from the vote. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, to approve the Area Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. The variance will not create undesirable change in the neighborhood. There are several mixed use 2-3 family apartment houses along the Union Corridor. 3  2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved through alternate means. 3. The variance is not substantial. The applicant is asking for a difference of 6 SQFT for the minimum lot area, while still providing adequate parking. 4. No adverse environmental impact will be caused. There will be no changes made to the footprint of the property. 5. The alleged hardship is not self-created. The property lost its legal non-conforming status around 2007 and was rezoned in 2008. The new 2008 zoning includes a minimum lot standard, which previously did not exist. Motion carried unanimously, with Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore absent from the vote. C. PAUL FALLATI requests an Area Variance for 220 Harborside Drive (39.42-1-21), located in the C-3 Waterfront Mixed Use Zoning District, to allow for 4 directional signs that are 16 SQFT each where 2 SQFT is allowed pursuant to §264-63(C) of the Zoning Code. Carl Wheeler of AJ Sign Company presented the application. Mr. Wheeler explained that the applicant would like to install directional signs in Mohawk Harbor that are larger than what the City Code allows. He stated that because two of the signs have quite a few lines of text on them, making the signs smaller would render the text too small for passing motorists to read. He noted that the applicants believe that the signs are necessary to help visitors navigate the site, particularly those who are not familiar with the area. Mr. Keller asked if the signs will all be freestanding. Mr. Wheeler stated that they will be. Mr. Connelly asked if the signs will be lighted. Mr. Wheeler stated that they will not be. Mr. Connelly asked why the signs are all proposed to be the same size, since some have much more text on them than others. Mr. Wheeler stated that the applicants would like the signs to be uniform in size, for continuity of design. Zoning Officer Epstein asked if all the signs will have the same supporting structure. Mr. Wheeler stated that they will. Mr. Connelly noted that with supports four feet in height and the signs themselves being four feet high the entire structure will be eight feet tall. He asked Mr. Wheeler why the applicants want them this high. Mr. Wheeler stated that they believe this is the minimum height the signs can be to still be visible in the winter, with accumulated snow beneath them. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Gleason stated that while he does believe the signs are large and tall, he also believes that Mohawk Harbor is a unique location. He added that while he would not approve such signs elsewhere in the City, he would be inclined to consider them here, because of the unique layout and scale of the Harbor development. Mr. Connelly agreed, stating that he is concerned about the size but is not sure that scaled-down signs, particularly the ones with more text, would be effective. Mr. Keller stated that he believes that the size is an issue, and that a 16 square foot directional sign is very large. He explained that if the developers are trying to promote a walkable sight, as they have previously stated, installing signs of this size specifically targeted to drivers of motor vehicles seems contradictory. Mr. Connelly asked Mr. Wheeler what would happen to the design of the signs if they were required to be smaller. Mr. Wheeler stated that the text on the signs would be more difficult to read. Mr. Keller noted that the businesses in the Harbor have individual signs on them, as well as on the large monument sign at the entrance to the development. He stated that he does not believe that the development is so large that people would get lost looking for a specific location. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Epstein if the Planning Commission will have to approve the signs. Mr. Epstein stated that Planning staff can approve them and City Planner Primiano had reviewed the proposal and did not communicate any objections to him. Mr. Keller stated that his inclination is to say the signs are too big, adding that it might be helpful to see them in a scaled drawing so that the Board could get a better idea of how they would appear on-site. Mr. Connelly agreed, stating that he is having a difficult time justifying such a substantial variance without more information. Mr. Gleason suggested tabling the application to allow the applicants to submit further materials illustrating how the signs will look against the scale of the development. Mr. Epstein stated that the Board could certainly request further materials, such as the scaled renderings. The Board Members agreed to table the application pending the admission of further supporting visual materials. MOTION TO TABLE Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, to table the proposal due to an incomplete application. Motion carried unanimously, with Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore absent from the vote. 5 D. JOHN MARCELLA requests Area Variances for 560-564 Broadway (49.31-1-17.1) located in the M-1 Light Manufacturing and Warehousing Zoning District, to allow for 218.15 SQFT of total signage where 150 SQFT is allowed, and to allow for two signs on one building side where a maximum of one sign is allowed pursuant to §264-61(K) of the Zoning Code. Carl Wheeler of AJ Sign Company presented the application. Mr. Wheeler explained that the applicants would like to remove the sign on the Van Guysling side of the building, which was installed before the neighboring building on that side was built, and install a channel letter sign on the Broadway side of the building, where there is currently a blade sign. He stated that their goal is to make the building more visible from 890 and Broadway. Zoning Officer Epstein asked if they had considered just moving the blade sign. Mr. Wheeler stated that moving that sign would be a lot of work, and they feel that the move would not result in sufficient added visibility. Mr. Connelly stated that the Board has had variance requests from several downtown businesses that have blade signs but also want signs on the front of their buildings. Mr. Keller asked if the proposed sign will be clearly visible from 890. Mr. Wheeler stated that it will be. He noted that the blade sign is also visible, but only for a short distance, and the new proposed sign will make the business location much clearer to approaching motorists. Mr. Connelly asked if the rendering in the application showing the new sign is to scale. Mr. Wheeler stated that it is. Mr. Keller stated that he believes that this location is very different from the downtown commercial district, where traffic is much slower and there is significant pedestrian activity. Mr. Connelly agreed. Mr. Gleason stated that he believes it is important to consider that the building is in a Manufacturing Zoning District and he does not feel that the sign is out of scale with the warehouse size building. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Connelly stated that while he acknowledges that the proposed sign is large, he feels that the size and location of the building is unique. The other Board Members agreed. SEQR RESOLUTION 6  Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to declare the project a Type 2 SEQR action, with no significant impacts on the environment. Motion carried unanimously, with Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore absent from the vote. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Clark, to approve the Area Variances based on the following findings of fact: 1. The variances will not create undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. This is a commercial area and the sign will not have a significant impact on the adjacent properties. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by alternative means. 3. The variance is substantial. The applicant requests a difference of 68.15 square feet which is 31% more than the total allowed. However, due to the size and location of the building and the M-1 Zoning District, the Board members feel that the negative impact of this difference is significantly mitigated. 4. No adverse environmental impact will be caused. Motion carried unanimously, with Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore absent from the vote. VII. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, with Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore absent from the vote. Meeting was adjourned at 7:16 p.m. 7