Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes December 7, 2022 I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Gleason called the meeting to order at 6:31 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. The meeting is being recorded. II. ATTENDANCE PRESENT: James Gleason, Chair; Brendan Keller; Mary D’Alessandro-Gilmore; Helene Lester, Austin Erickson, Assistant Planner; Chris Marney, Assistant Corporation Counsel and Sylvia Jimison, Development Staff. EXCUSED: David Connelly and Fred Clark III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK None. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Motion by Mr. Brendan Keller, seconded by Ms. Mary D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to approve the Minutes of the October 5, 2022 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. V. APPLICATIONS: Applications: Old Business – none Applications: New Business Applications: New Business A. Joseph Peniciaro requests an area variance for 208 Lafayette St. (tax parcel # 39.80- 2-18.2), located in a “C-4” Downtown Commercial District, to manufacture and install one monument style multi-tenant parking lot sign off-premises, pursuant to Section 264-62 of the zoning ordinance.  Mr. Joe Peniciaro of 208 Lafayette St. representing the applicant requested an off- premise sign for the recently completed medical office building at 500 State Street. Requesting for sign to be on Lafayette Street (500 State Street is the parcel and 501 is shared parking). The sign will help with the flow of traffic into the parking lot. Mr. Peniciare stated he would answer any questions from the commission. Commissioner Keller wanted to know if there is already a sign in place. The applicant stated there was nothing there for the Lafayette Street side. Commissioner Gleason asked if there were any public comments in favor or opposed and no comments were made. SEQR RESOLUTION Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to declare this project a Type II SEQRA Action. Motion carried unanimously. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to approve the area variance as submitted. And 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. Motion carried unanimously. B. Reserve at Towpath Trail LLC requests an area variance for 540 North End Dr. (tax parcel #30.76-3-1.1), located in a “PRD” Planned Residential Development, to install a 19 square ft. sign where 6 square ft. is allowed, pursuant to Section 264-61 Schedule I of the zoning ordinance. Emma Heck with AJ Sign Company representing applicant we are proposing a 19 square foot monument and making square foot monument sign double sided. The property is in a zone where only six square feet is allowed. The applicant is looking for a 13 square foot relief variance relief for the proposed monument sign. She said this was needed to because of the size of the property and to direct renters and for deliveries. It would not be intrusive and a moderate color. Ms. Heck asked if there were any questions from the commission and she would be happy to answer. Commissioner D’Alessandro-Gilmore asked where the sign would be facing? The applicant stated it would be double-sided and perpendicular with the road itself. Commissioner Gleason stated there is nothing in the area when trying to navigate, there is no signage currently there.  SEQR RESOLUTION Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to declare this project a Type II SEQRA Action. Motion carried unanimously. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to approve the area variance as submitted. And 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. Motion carried unanimously. C. Carol Eto requests a use variance for 332 North Brandywine Ave (tax parcel #49.43- 2-27), located in a “R-2” Two-Family Residential District, to use the existing third dwelling in the building pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 1 Schedule A of the zoning ordinance. Ms. Eto’s came before the commission to explain that she wants to use the third floor of her two-family home as a residence. This would allow her to rent the first and second floor. She explained that she does not have a retirement income and she is age 68. This would allow her to support herself. The third floor of her dwelling is all electrical and she has had a meter installed. The 3rd floor of her dwelling has 9-foot ceilings. She wants to have things done in compliance and not have any problems about using the third floor of her dwelling. She has been at the property since 2007. The property exists in a R-2 two family residential district. The applicant stated that neighbors are using their properties beyond a two-family use, and some have 7 units being used as rental space. She was advised to file a complaint with the Codes Department about the neighbors who are using their property beyond a 2-family residential use. Commissioner Gleason asked the applicant if the space on the third floor has a kitchen and bathroom. The applicant said, yes. Commissioner Gleason also wanted to know if it made a difference that she is the property owner and not asking to rent the third floor. Commissioner Gleason then asked if there were any public comments in favor or opposed and no comments were made. Counsel Marney stated that from a zoning standpoint it’s a R2 residential district and will need to prove if had been a 3-family. Also, in 2006 it was assessed as a 2-family residential property. There is nothing from the Codes Department and no record in RPS. Ms. Eto was upset because she could not understand why the property could not be used as a three-family property and why she is being denied. She said in 2008 she was  told by the Codes Department could use the space as an in-law apartment. She stated she is trying to do the right thing and she is being denied a use variance. The Commission advised her that she could request for rezoning and could take the matter before the City Council to change the zone. A motion was made based on the following findings of fact: The applicant has not demonstrated that she cannot realize reasonable term with the law uses, that the hardship is not unique, and applies to a substantial portion of neighborhood; the hardship has not been demonstrated. Use variance denied. The Commission stated, “the use variance has been denied by the zoning board because there are five very specific criteria that have to be met for and those are the criteria that are listed in the application that was given to applicant. They are very specific and very specific legal requirements for the zoning board to be able to give you an approval for a use variance, they're very rarely granted.” USE VARIANCE DENIAL Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to deny the use variance as submitted. And based on the following findings of fact: 1) A desirable 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 an adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5) The alleged hardship does not constitute a self-created difficulty. Motion carried unanimously.  D. John Senisi requests an area variance for 1834 Lenox Rd. (tax parcel #39.44-3-1), located in a “R-1” Single Family Residential District, to construct a new residence on the property with a 48.22 ft. setback where 25 ft. is required, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Schedule C of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Senisi, applicant said he is an architect and wants to build a house that is 150 feet deep and 115 wide (2 lot area variance being requested). He said he developed a plan for solar access in the backyard and to save the trees on the property. In the front yard there will be a 400-year-old, 150 Foot Norway Spruce that is in excellent condition and he had an arborist to examine the tree. He wants to get the building set back further that the normal setback, so there can be solar access and the house will be energy efficient, but still have the trees. He drives on pavers, waterproof water pavers, pavers that are permeable pavements, so he wouldn't disturb that area. He designed the building fit to have solar access. It will be a, modern building. It's multi-level, three levels, and there's different depths that setback that gives some outdoor space -that's the variance being requested. It will be driven by the environmental safety and the environmental condition that's there now. Commissioner Gleason asked if there were any public comments in favor or opposed and stated there was a letter received from a neighbor. The neighbor was concerned about privacy and 3-story building. The letter provided to the applicant to read. Commissioner Keller asked the applicant if he would like to speak to any concerns in the letter. The applicant stated, if the trees come down the neighbor would not have any privacy. The cost to take down the trees would be $10K- $15K, and if needed, can build in different area – he is not adverse to cutting down the trees, but will not work for the solar access. Commissioner Gleason asked if any other questions/anyone oppose or in favor of the project. John Samatulski said, “he lives on Stratford Road and knows the applicant John Senisi has a huge commitment to the community. The nature of the 2 lots area variance is not a self-centered hardship- saving the trees is a really good design,” and he wanted to speak in support of the variance application. SEQR RESOLUTION Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to declare this project a Type II SEQRA Action. Motion carried unanimously. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to approve the area variance as submitted. And 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 does not constitute a self-created difficulty. 6. The variance approval is specific to this property because of the nature of the tenant and school safety requirements. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Other Business- none VII. Adjourn 7:39 p.m.