Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes December 2, 2020 I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Gleason called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. Due to the closure of City Hall because of the Covid-19 Virus, the meeting was conducted online via WebEx. After calling the meeting to order 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 Connelly; Mary D’Alessandro- Gilmore; Brendan Keller; Helene Lester; Avi Epstein, Neighborhood Stabilization Coordinator; Jennifer Mills, Secretary ABSENT: Fred Clark III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore recused herself from the consideration of application A, submitted by Dean DeVito of Highbridge Development. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, to approve the Minutes of the October 7, 2020 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. V. NEW BUSINESS - APPLICATIONS A. DEAN DEVITO as a member of HIGHBRIDGE PRIME DEVELOPMENT requests area variances for 240 State Street (39.71-3- 9.111) located in the C-4 Downtown Mixed Use Zoning District, to allow for a 12’ x 22’ (264 SF) electronic message board to be erected as a roof sign where roof signs are prohibited and to exceed the maximum sign area of 150 SF pursuant to §264-62 (E) and Schedule I respectively.  Dean DeVito of Highbridge Prime Development and Tom Wheeler of AJ Signs presented the application. Mr. DeVito briefly reviewed the application and explained that the purpose of the proposed sign is to offer advertising opportunities to retail tenants on the first floor of the building. Mr. Wheeler reviewed the technical specifications of the electronic message board sign, explaining that the brightness would adjust according to the available ambient light and that the message would change at a rate approved by the DOT. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION The Board Members indicated that a size of this sign and type would have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. They also stated that it appeared that the hardship was self-created. SEQR RESOLUTION Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to adopt the Negative Declaration on this unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA based upon the review and assessment of the Environmental Assessment Forms Parts 1 and 2, with the Negative Declaration being set forth in Part 3 of the Form. Motion carried unanimously, with Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore recusing herself from the vote. AREA VARIANCE DENIAL Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to deny the Area Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. An undesirable change would 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 would be an adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged hardship is self-created. Motion carried unanimously, with Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore recusing herself from the vote. B. SCHENECTADY MUNICIPAL HOUSING AUTHORITY requests an area variance for Yates Village (30.84-2-1.1 & 30.84-2-1.2), located in the 2 R-3 Multi-Family Zoning District, to allow for a 300 dwelling units, a community center, and maintenance building to provide a total of 333 parking spaces where 476 parking spaces are required pursuant to §264 Schedule F. James Easton of MJ Engineering presented the application. Mr. Easton briefly reviewed the application and the site plan. He explained that the parking conditions on the site would not change if the variance was granted, as the number of residential units and parking spaces would remain the same as had existed previous to the redevelopment of the site. The Board Members discussed the previous occupancy rate of the parking spaces at the site, which the applicants indicated was approximately 60% at peak times. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION The Board Members indicated that they had no objection variance, commenting that this residential site is unique and has operated successfully with this amount of parking for many years. SEQR RESOLUTION Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, to adopt the Negative Declaration on this unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA based upon the review and assessment of the Environmental Assessment Forms Parts 1 and 2, with the Negative Declaration being set forth in Part 3 of the Form. 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. Motion carried unanimously. 3 C. DANIEL ZAL requests an area variance for 132 and 134 Jackson Avenue (60.37-1-24 & 60.37-1-23) located in the R-3 Multi-Family Zoning District, to allow for the consolidation of these parcels into one lot with 16,220 SF where 18,000 SF of lot area is required for 8 dwelling units pursuant to §264 Schedule C. Daniel Zal presented the application. Mr. Zal briefly reviewed the application, explaining that he wishes to consolidate the lots so that he can build a garage over the existing lot line. He noted that if the parcels are not consolidated and he were to build one or two smaller buildings it would require a greater number of variances, and would inevitably put more of a strain on the surrounding environmental conditions by disrupting more land and requiring more impervious surface to be added. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. FURTHER DISCUSSION The Board Members discussed the proposal and indicated that they would have no objection to the variance in this case, as Mr. Zal owns both parcels and will be using the new garage to service the buildings, i.e. for storage of building and maintenance materials. They agreed that one garage would be preferable to building two, which would require more variances and have a greater environmental impact. SEQR RESOLUTION Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to declare the project a Type 2 SEQR action, with no significant adverse impacts on the environment. Motion carried unanimously. 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. Without the variance the applicant would be forced to construct a garage on a much smaller lot which would require more variances to be allowed and would not produce the desired result. 3. The variance is not substantial. 4. There will be no adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 4  Motion carried unanimously. VII. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. 5