Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes December 1, 2021 I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Gleason called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. After calling the meeting to order Mr. Gleason explained to the members of the public 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; Fred Clark; Avi Epstein, Neighborhood Stabilization Coordinator ABSENT: None III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK None. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to approve the Minutes of the November 3, 2021 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. V. APPLICATIONS A. Avril D’Souza DMD requests an area variance for 1552 Union St (50.29-1-5), located within the R-2 Two-Family Residential zoning district, to allow for the installation of a handicapped ramp with no side yard setback where a minimum 6ft setback is required pursuant to Schedule C of the zoning ordinance. Ms. D’Souza explained that she needed the variance in order to provide suitable handicapped access to clients. She stated that the business just opened and that in order to be accessible to everyone a ramp would be required and the only place one could be built was in the rear of the building along the property line.  PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Gleason said he was very familiar with the property and backyard and that he could not see any alternatives to this variance to allow for a handicapped ramp. The Board members agreed and asked that the applicant place the ramp as far from the lot line as possible even if the variance were to be granted. SEQR RESOLUTION The application was declared to be a Type II SEQR Action which requires no further actions to take place. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to approve the area variance based on the following: 1. No undesirable change will be produced in the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another method. This is the only location on the property where a ramp can be placed within close proximity of a parking space. 3. The variance is not substantial. 4. There will not be an adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged hardship is not self-created. Motion carried unanimously. B. Kenneth Shaw on behalf of Quick Service RealCo, LLC, requests an area variance for 2035 State St. (60.56-3-45.1), located within the C-5 Business zoning district, to allow for a total of 16 parking spaces where a maximum of 9 is permitted pursuant to 264-43 Schedule F of the zoning ordinance. Adam Fishel presented the application and explained that the property currently has a total of 25 parking spaces and that the proposal would be to reduce that number to 16. Even though its an overall reduction of impervious space and enhanced circulation the parking would exceed the 9 required by code. Mr. Fishel states that the typical number of spaces required for businesses of this type and size are 20 at a minimum. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR 2  None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Connelly asked if the building would be demolished and then rebuilt on a smaller footprint. Mr. Fishel confirmed that this would be the case. The applicant stated they have approvals from the Planning Commission and they discussed moving the dumpster to a better location. Mr. Epstein explained what triggered the requirement to provide no more than 9 parking spaces. SEQR RESOLUTION Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Clark, to declare the project as an unlisted action and to adopt a Negative Declaration 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. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, 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 not be an adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged hardship is not self-created. Motion carried unanimously. C. DePaul Properties, Inc. requests an area variance for 914, 918, 924, 932, 938, 944, 956 and 1002 Crane St. (49.47-1-10 through 49.47-1-15, 49.55-1-2.11 and 49.55-1-4.1), located within the C-2 Mixed Use Commercial zoning district, to allow for several parking spaces to be constructed within six (6) to twelve (12) feet of a residentially zoned district where a minimum of 15 feet is required pursuant to the zoning ordinance. Dan Brocht of LaBella presented the application. Mr. Brocht explained that this variance was just for the parking spaces that would be placed within 15 feet of the 3 residential property lines. The applicant reviewed the drawings and outlined the connections and parking spaces as currently configured. Mr. Brocht explained that the plan was to eliminate the 5 curb cuts to build a street wall which would be in-line with the Craig-Main Linkage Study recommendations. Mr. Brocht noted that the parking spaces that required the variance were configured in a manner to avoid headlights from being aimed at adjacent homes to the extent practicable. The applicant also noted that the Planning Commission was in favor and encouraged the reduction of the overall parking provided. Mr. Brocht noted that fencing and landscaping would be provided on the exterior of the lot to serve as a buffer from the adjacent properties. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR David Hogenkamp of Metroplex Development Authority spoke in favor of the application. He stated that there was a vast effort to work with the community to make this project happen and in a way that neighbors would be pleased with. Additionally, he outlined the limitations of the parking design to meet all zoning code requirements. Mr. Hogenkamp mentioned the Craig-Main Study highlighted the efforts to reduce vehicle conflicts at the intersection and to enhance the street wall. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION Pat Smith stated that she is not opposed but that she has some concerns she wants to have addressed. Ms. Smith reiterated the work and communication that had occurred so far. She stated her problem was with the driveway on pleasant. Ms. Smith stated that she and the neighbors want to see a white vinyl fence and trees along the outside of the property. She stated it’s a great project and she wants it but she wants assurances that the public would have their concerns addressed. George Dunckley of Fourth Ave stated he has concerns mainly about the fence. He would like to see a solid white vinyl fence. Mr. Dunckley states he is mostly in favor of the project but the driveway on Pleasant would be a major issue with trucks and emergency services. Lisa Sexton Stewart of Pleasant St spoke about her concerns regarding the driveway. Ms. Stewart stated the narrow street would prevent people from getting in and out of the driveway. She likes the overall plan and design and wouldn’t want to the see the project go away but doesn’t want to lose her parking. Debbie Mayou of Pleasant St spoke about concerns regarding the driveway and how narrow it is. Ms. Mayou stated the driveway would cause traffic issues for all residents. CONTINUED DISCUSSION 4  Mr. Keller asked if buses and trucks use the street currently. The neighbors stated that they currently use Pleasant. Mr. Connelly asked if there was another plan for parking to meet the minimum if this area variance wasn’t approved. Mr. Brocht stated that there is no plan for another parking area since it would require different variances. Mr. Gleason stated that he understood the concerns but the neighbors’ points were not about the location of the parking spots before them. The Board discussed a reduction of parking and informally stated they had no issues with it in theory. SEQR RESOLUTION Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Clark, to declare the project a Type II SEQR action. 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 not be an adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged hardship is not self-created. Motion carried unanimously. D. DePaul Properties, Inc. requests an area variance for 944 Crane St (49.47-1-15), located within the C-2 Mixed Use Commercial zoning district, to allow for a lot line adjustment that would result in the parcel having a total lot area of 3,580 sq. ft. where a minimum of 11,000 sq. ft. is required pursuant to Schedule C of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Brocht presented the application and reviewed the layout of the properties for context. He explained the need for the variance based on the proposed lot line changes. Mr. Brocht also highlighted that 944 Crane St would be using 6 parking spaces in the main lot and that they would have an easement to access the parking area. He confirmed that the parking spaces closest to the building would include signage in an attempt to prevent others from parking there. Mr. Connelly asked if there was parking currently for 944 Crane St. Mr. Brocht stated that was correct. 5  PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Keller stated the need for a variance was reasonable and changing the lot configuration another way would likely trigger the need for a different one. SEQR RESOLUTION Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Keller, to adopt a Negative Declaration 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. 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 not be an 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 Ms. Lester, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m. 6