Zoning Board of Appeals

Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes (Special Meeting for Summit Avenue) August 10, 2023 I. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Gleason called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. After calling the meeting to order, Commissioner Gleason, explained to the members of the public how the consideration of the applications would proceed. I will read all 24 of the applications. Whoever is a representative for the company, I'll ask you to come up first. Give us a brief but thorough request for what you're asking for. You don't have to go through each application. It can be general. When they're done, I'll ask if there's anyone else that's in favor of this and they shall be given an opportunity to speak. After that, I'll ask if there's anyone here that's opposed. Any of these applications will also be given an opportunity to speak. Anything that's submitted to the board tonight becomes part of the permanent record. When you come forward to speak, just have a seat opposite me there's a sheet there for you to sign and put your address down and verbally give us your name and address these meetings are taking place. If there's if the board has questions for you, after you've spoken, they'll ask you to come back up if necessary. There may be a discussion among the board member and hopefully you'll get a decision this evening. Also, folks, our counsel just asked me to inform you that everything that's been requested tonight is an area variance and has to do with setbacks. That's all we're here for. I'll just read the company name. They’re requesting all of these variances once and then all of the requests are being made by AIKMLB. Holding LLC. II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: James Gleason, Mary D’Alessandro-Gilmore, Helene Lester, Brendan Keller, Mary Zawacki, Jack Connelly, Chris Marney, Assistant Corporation Counsel, and Sylvia Jimison, Development Staff. III. EXCUSED: Fred Clark and Dave Connelly . IV. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK None. V. Applications: New Business A. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 702 Westover Place (tax parcel 49.24-4- 41) located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow a 2.92’ side setback where 5’ is required, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Schedule C B. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 702 Westover Place (tax parcel 49.24-4- 41) located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow a 9.4’ rear setback where 25’ is required, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Schedule C C. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 702 Westover Place (tax parcel 49.24-4- 41) located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow 45% lot coverage for the principal unit where 30% is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Schedule C D. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 702 Westover Place (tax parcel 49.24-4- 41) located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow a 20’ front setback where 3’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Schedule C E. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 567 Summit Avenue (tax parcel 49.331-3- 37.1) located in the R-1 Single Family Residential District to allow a 25.8’ front setback where 2’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Schedule C F. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 555 Summit Avenue South (tax parcel 49.31-3-44.1) located in the R-1 Single Family Residential District to allow a 25.9’ front setback where 6’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Schedule C G. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 555 Summit Avenue North (tax parcel 49.31-44.1) located in the R-1 Single Family Residential District to allow a 25.5’ front setback where 6’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Schedule C H. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 549 Summit Avenue (tax parcel 49.31-3- 46.1 located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow a 26.5’ front setback where 6’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Schedule C I. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 550 Summit Avenue South (tax parcel 49.31-2-20.1) located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow a 39.8’ front setback where 6’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Schedule C J. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 550 Summit Avenue North (tax parcel 49.31-2-20.1) located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow a 36.7’ front setback where 6’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Schedule C K. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 546 Summit Avenue (tax parcel 49.31-2- 18.1) located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow a 23.8’ front setback where 6’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Schedule C L. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 528 Summit Avenue (tax parcel 49.31-2- 9.1) located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow a 23’ front setback where 6’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Section C M. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 516 Summit Avenue (tax parcel 49.31-2- 4.1) located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow a 21’ front setback where 6’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Section C N. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 504 Summit Avenue (tax parcel 49.24-2- 21) located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow a 23’ front setback where 6’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Section C O. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 502 Summit Avenue (tax parcel 49.24-2- 20.1) located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow a 22’ front setback where 5’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Section C P. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 430 Summit Avenue (tax parcel 49.31-2- 18.1) located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow a 20.9’ of front setback where 5’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Section C Q. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 422 Summit Avenue (tax parcel 49.24-2- 14.1) located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow a 21’ front setback where 5’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Section C R. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 420 Summit Avenue (tax parcel 49.24-2- 13.1) located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow a 21.1’ front setback where 5’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Schedule C S. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 416 Summit Avenue (tax parcel 49.24-2- 11.1) located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow a 21.1’ front setback where 5’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Schedule C T. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 364 Georgetta Dix Plaza (tax parcel 49.24-3-47) located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow a 20.5’ front setback where 6’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Schedule C U. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 347 Georgetta Dix Plaza (tax parcel 49.24-4-3.1) located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow a 21.9’ front setback where 6’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Schedule C V. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 503 Mumford Street (tax parcel 49.32-1- 7.1) located in the R-1 Single Family Residential District to allow a 25.4’ front setback where 2’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Schedule C W. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 497 Mumford Street (tax parcel 49.32-1- 10.11) located in the R-1 Single Family Residential District to allow a 25.5’ front setback where 2’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Schedule C X. AIKMLB Holdings LLC requests an area variance for 417 Summit Avenue (tax parcel 49.32-2- 6.1) located in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District to allow a 21’ front setback where 5’ is the maximum, pursuant to Section 264 Attachment 3 Schedule C Mr. Damien Pinto-Martin, of AIKMLB Holdings, LLC, came before the commission stating the following: - They are purchasing 19 parcels from the city and one parcel from the county to develop. - There are currently 7 vacant buildings on the properties that they plan to demolish. - They plan to build duplex and single-family homes on the parcels that will be targeted at buyers with incomes between $40,000 to $60,000. - They will be bringing in around $7 million in state funding through the HCR homes program to subsidize the project and transfer to new homebuyers. - The area variance requests are for reduced front setback requirements to allow for more green space and landscaping in the front yards. The Board felt as if agenda item D, a front yard setback would be used for front yard parking, as there was no off street parking available for 702 Westover. Mr. Pinto-Martin agreed to withdraw agenda item D relating to 702 Westover Place. For that property, they will match the existing 3- foot setback rather than requesting a variance. The removal of item D made item B, pertaining to the rear setback, unnecessary and was therefore also removed. For parcel 567 Summit, he noted that the parcel is made up of two previously foreclosed parcels that were combined. They were looking to create a single-story ranch option on that parcel since most of their other properties are duplexes. They said having the reduced front setback on that parcel would allow for an ADA accessible ranch home. If they did not get the variance, they could still build a duplex on that parcel. He also stated that they plan to install new sidewalks for all of their homes as part of the project. He also mentioned that they will be working with the neighborhood association through an outreach program to encourage neighbors to improve their properties and have consistent streetscapes. They view the additional green space and landscaping in the front yards as important for revitalizing the neighborhood and appealing to buyers. - They have sent out 360 letters to neighbors - They are holding a community meeting on September 7 from 6 to 8 pm at the public library - They have had one-on-one engagements and spoken to mothers who expressed a desire for more green space and trees for kids to play - They want to ensure the project is done in an open and transparent manner with community input Ms. Pam Swanigan, AIKMLB Holdings, LLC, commented, that in neighborhoods like Hamilton Hill there are limited opportunities to add visible green space. She felt adding green space in the front yards through the variances was important and something that could not be undone. While the consistency of the streetscape is also important, this project presented a good opportunity to add more trees and green space through the front yard setbacks. She saw the project as potentially being a successful model for adding more expansive front yards in other neighborhoods. She also stated, there has been four outreach events and 74 potential buyers on a waitlist to be pre-approved. Commissioner Gleason asked if anyone from the public oppose or in favor of the project. Mr. Michael Drexler, a resident of 427 Summit Avenue since 1976, raised the following concerns about the project: - The reduced setbacks, especially on the smaller lots, will adversely affect the amount of backyard space. - For 567 Summit, a house is planned sideways which will impact the off-street parking currently used by neighbors on that corner. - For 549 Summit, the setback is tight with little rear yard space. - For 504 Summit, the house is planned on a very narrow part of the lot with only 1 foot of clearance on each side. - In the winter, snow coming off roofs may hit neighboring houses if they are built closer together. - The house at the corner of Georgetta Dix Plz. and Hamilton St. has a steep slope that may be an issue. - Some of the houses planned, like at 567 Summit and 504 Summit, will be very tight unless property lines are adjusted. Michael Drexler also commented that for 567 Summit, someone in the city had merged two lots together to make an L shaped parcel. The two houses currently on that corner of Summit and Strong streets use the lots for off-street parking. He said if they park on the street it is a tight curve and blind corner with no safe on-street parking. He was concerned that building a house sideways on the L shaped parcel would impact the off-street parking currently used by the neighbors. For 555 Summit, Mr. Drexler made the following comments: - The setback is pretty tight. There is not much rear yard space there. - Back in 1996, there was actually a landslide right where 550 is pretty nearly into the hillside. - The entire hillside running that range has had problems. In 1996, a landslide occurred at that location killing one person. - On the other side of it in 1990, the hillsides started to split apart requiring the demolition of several houses. His concerns were that the reduced setback and proximity to the hillside at 550 Summit could cause issues, given the history of landslides and hillside instability in that area. For the property at the corner of (347 Georgetta Dix Plaza), Mr. Drexler commented that the house planned there has a steep slope that may be an issue. He did not provide any further details about specific concerns. Commissioner Keller asked Mr. Drexler if he would rather see the project go forward with the reduced front setbacks as described, or with standard setbacks. Mr. Drexler responded that he would rather not have such substantial front setbacks, especially where it would limit rear yard space and proximity to the hillside. He said assuming the developers do proper engineering analysis, he would prefer standard setbacks with more rear yard space. Commissioner Gleason asked if there were other concerns and if not closed public comment portion of the meeting. In response to Mr. Drexler's concerns, Mr. Damien Pinto-Martin said: - From a geotechnical standpoint, they will conduct soil borings, foundation design and engineering to ensure the properties are built on solid soil and will not have movement issues. - They are meeting the required side setbacks, so the reduced front setbacks should not impact neighboring properties. - They can track the specific addresses Mr. Drexler mentioned and provide more details to address his concerns for each property. - For 567 Summit, they are looking to create a single-story ranch home on the L-shaped parcel, but could still build a duplex if needed. - For 504 Summit, they will be adjusting the lot lines, which will still be outside the required setbacks. Overall, he tried to reassure the board that they will do the proper engineering to ensure stability and safety, and that the reduced front setbacks should not negatively impact neighboring properties due to meeting the required side setbacks. For 702 Westover Place, the applicant initially requested a variance to allow for a front yard setback. Members of the board feared that given the fact that this parcel would not be able to accommodate off-street parking, the increased front yard would be used for parking which is not allowed by city code. In response, the applicant agreed to withdraw their request for front yard parking and turn that area into green space instead. They said they would come back for a parking variance if needed. The board emphasized that front yard parking is prohibited throughout the city. Chris Marney, the city’s counsel, made the following comments for the record: - For 702 Westover, the applicant did not disclose that the Zoning Board of Appeals would be weighing any actions in their SEQR, so the SEQR would not include the BZA's decisions. - Area variances for one, two and three family homes are type two actions under SEQR, so the board should declare them as such. - He was comfortable doing a blanket SEQR declaration for all the variance requests based on their property type. 702 Westover would be included in one motion, all remaining properties in the R-1 zone would be in a second motion with the remaining properties belonging to the R-2 zone in the final motion. - The board has discretion to grant the variances as long as they meet the standards. - He recommended the board handle the single-family properties (items E, F, G, V, W) separately from the remaining items (H through U and X). - He wanted the board to include findings that the variances are largely similar in their motion. - Anything in the applicant's application becomes part of the permanent record. RESOLUTION For the single-family properties (items E, F, G, V, and W), Commissioner Lester's motion was: Commissioner Lester stated, "I make a motion on items E, F, G, V and W to declare them a Type II SEQR with no undesirable change or effect" For 702 Westover, Commissioner Lester made a motion to declare agenda items A and C as Type II SEQR actions having no undesirable change or effect on the area. For the remaining properties (items H through U and X), Commissioner Ms. Lester's motion was: She said, "I make a motion to declare this a Type II SEQR action with no undesirable change or effect" All SEQR motions were seconded by Commissioner Keller and approved unanimously to declare the variance requests as Type II SEQR actions with no adverse environmental impacts. Commissioner Keller's motion for the project included the following and Commissioner Lester seconded: - For 702 Westover Place (agenda items A and C), the board granted the variance requests based on findings that no undesirable change would be produced, the benefits could not be achieved by another method, the variances were not substantial given it replaces a similar structure, and there would be no adverse environmental effects. - For the single-family properties (items E, F, G, V, W), the board granted the variances based on findings that this presented a unique opportunity to introduce green space into a neighborhood that lacks it, the benefits of the green space outweighed maintaining the existing streetscape, and there would be no adverse environmental effects. - For the remaining properties (items H through U and X), the board granted the variances based on findings that this presented a unique opportunity to introduce green space, the benefits of the green space outweighed maintaining the existing streetscape, although the variances were substantial and the hardship self-created, there would be no adverse environmental effects. The key findings in support of granting the variances centered around the opportunity to introduce much-needed green space into the neighborhood through the reduced front setbacks. The board then voted unanimously to grant the variance requests. VI. Other Business- none VII. Adjourn 7:32 p.m.