Zoning Board of Appeals

Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 11, 2024 I. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Gleason called the meeting to order at 6:00 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. 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. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Jim Gleason, Chair; Dave Connelly, Vice Chair; Helene Lester, Mary Zawacki, Brendan Keller, Zoning Officer Nora Wallace, Maxine Barasch, Corporation Counsel EXCUSED: Mary D’Alessandro-Gilmore III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK None. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES The minutes were approved for the August 14th, 2024 meeting. The motion was made by Commissioner Keller and seconded by Commissioner Connelly. The motion carried 4-0. V. Old Business None. 1 VI. Applications: New Business A. Knies Properties, LCC requests an Area Variance for Verona Ave (tax parcel # 39.28-1- 33) located in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District for relief from the “Minimum Lot Area (square feet)” requirement of “5,000 per use” for her a lot that is 4,000 square feet to be buildable pursuant to Schedule C Lot Development Standards. Rachel Kniese the property owner of 3082 Albany Street (tax parcel # 60.55-1-6) came forward to discuss her Area Variance application. She begins her presentation to the board stating that she bought two buildable lots in 2007 before the zoning ordinance was revised in 2008. Since purchasing the two lots the property owner built a house on one of them but sold it many years before. The existing vacant lot cannot be sold as buildable (4,000 square feet) with the existing zoning code “Minimum Lot Area (square feet)” requirement of 5,000 square feet to be considered buildable in the R-1 Single – Family Residential District. Commissioner Connelly and Commissioner Keller questioned why the applicant had never built and what the surrounding lots were. The applicant explained that there was a death in the family and the lot she is applying for a variance was never built. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Commissioner Keller made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Connelly. 1.The changes sought by the applicant will not produce an undesirable change to the neighborhood 2.The area variance is the only reasonable method of achieving the applicant’s goals 3. The variance is not substantial and will not detract from the character of the neighborhood 4. There will be no adverse effect on the physical or environmental nature of the neighborhood 5. The hardship is not self-created The motion was approved unanimously. B. James Santiago, request a Use Variance for 1265 Congress St (tax parcel # 49.71-1-31) located in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District for full relief from Schedule A Use Regulations for Residential Districts to utilize the lot for “motor vehicle storage” 2 James Santiago came forward to present his Use Variance application to the board. He states to the board the zoning district that the property is located in as well as states it is directly next to the train tracks and a brownfield. Clarifies to the board he would like to use this city sale lot for storing vehicles as his tow lot. Commissioner Gleason inquires how many cars at a time will be stored there. Mr. Santiago replies with “only 40 cars at a time will be stored on the lot”. Continues this line of thought with provided further context towards the existing property conditions. Stating that the location has existing land buffers such as a steep incline and thick row of trees that will buffer between the R-1 neighborhood and the lot. Commissioner Connelly then inquires “will this use be long term storage or short term”. Mr. Santiago replies with “the vehicles will be stored for a short period of time and only for towing purposes”. Commissioner Connelly inquires “do you own the towing company” and Mr. Santiago replies that he is the owner of the business. Commissioner Gleason then inquires “will there be someone working there to allow people to retrieve their vehicles off the lot”. Mr. Santiago response and further details his overall business plan and incorporating the local community into it. His intentions are to have an employee at the tow lot yard so people may pick up their vehicles and his hope is to find a local resident to employ so community directly benefits as a whole. Mr. Santiago ideally would like someone from the neighborhood next door to the lot. Commissioner Keller inquires if Mr. Santiago currently owns the lot and he responds with that he does not own the lot. Commissioner Connelly follows up this question by inquiring if the city is the current owner. Mr. Santiago verifies that the city is the current owner. He continues this line of thought by stating he has been working with the city’s Home Ownership Coordinator Maurice Brown and Zoning Officer Nora Wallace so that he follows all the rules and processes correctly. Working with the two city officials was all made in an effort to do the right thing so he may utilize the property for his intended use without repercussions. Commissioner Gleason inquires if any of the neighbors will be bothered by the tow lots operations or the lighting. Mr. Santiago emphasizes the slope between 1265 Congress and the R-1 neighborhood is about an 8–10-foot drop and on the other side of the property are train tracks. Commissioner Kelly inquires about the brownfield. Mr. Santiago states he received the information regarding the brown field from Zoning Officer Wallace. Ms. Wallace confirms this statement and elaborates that herself and Mr. Brown have been assisting Mr. Santiago and there is indeed a brownfield right next to 1265 Congress. Commissioner Connelly inquires to Ms. Wallace if the 3  applicant will be required to clean up the brownfield. Ms. Wallace confirms the applicant will not be responsible for that. Commissioner Gleason then inquires about the gate that was included in the applicant’s photos of the existing property. Mr. Santiago states that the gate is owned by the train company then Commissioner Gleason asks about the piles of tires that are depicted in one of the applicant’s photo and if Mr. Santiago intends on cleaning that up. Mr. Santiago confirms that he intends on cleaning up the tires. Commissioner Keller asks if there are any easements from the train company on the land, he intends on purchasing from the city and if he is going to patch the holes in the existing asphalt on the property. Mr. Santiago states that there are no easements for the train company. Commissioner Gleason closes public discussion and opens up the internal discussion with the board. Commissioner Connelly asks one more to follow up question along with Commissioner Keller regarding the R-1 neighborhood that directly abuts and the lighting plan. Mr. Santiago states that the steep slope and tree buffer is sufficient, and the lighting will not have an impact. As a final question Commissioner Keller inquires if Mr. Santiago talked to any of the neighbors. Mr. Santiago stated he did not. During the internal discussion with the board, they determined the location and use were approved to “allow motor vehicle storage where it is not allowed pursuant to Schedule A”. USE VARIANCE APPROVAL Commissioner Keller made a motion to grant the use variance as requested. Seconded by Commissioner Connelly. 1. The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return under the current zoning laws. 2. The property in question is unique and does not apply to the rest of the zoning district 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood 4. The hardship is not self-created The motion was approved unanimously. C. Mark P. Ottati, request an Area Variance for 2415 Oakland Ave (Tax # 31.77-2-15) located in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District to seek relief from Schedule C Lot Development Standards “principle building setbacks” from the zoning ordinance. 4  Mr. Ottati the property owner of 2415 Oakland Ave introduces himself and begins his presentation to the board requesting a rear yard setback area variance. He informs the board directly behind his property is Kailberg Recreation Field, the left side of the house there is no neighbor, there is a paper street, on the right he has a neighbor. Overall, this Area Variance will not have any impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Connelly and Commissioner Keller ask a series of questions regarding the location of his property. Mr. Ottati clarifies these inquires by explaining the definition of a paper street and states the line of trees in question were planted by himself as a natural landscape buffer. The conversation concludes shortly after, Commissioner Gleason closes the portion for public comment and the board begins the internal discussion. This internal discussion is brief and mutual. Commissioner Connelly motions to grant the area variance. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Commissioner Connelly made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Keller. 1. The changes sought by the applicant will not produce an undesirable change to the neighborhood 2. The area variance is the only reasonable method of achieving the applicant’s goals 3. The variance is not substantial and will not detract from the character of the neighborhood 4. There will be no adverse effect on the physical or environmental nature of the neighborhood 5. The hardship is not self-created The motion was approved unanimously. D. Rushane Morrison, request an Area Variance for 805 Rankin Ave (Tax # 49.28-2-57) located in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District for relief from Schedule C Lot Development Standards “principle building setbacks” from the zoning ordinance. 5 Mr. Morrison the property owner of 805 Rankin Ave comes forward to present his and his wife’s area variance. He leads the presentation with a brief explanation to the board the events that led them to the appeal. Mr. Morrison states that while working on renovating their home the engineer working with them identified major structural issues with the existing structure. Furthermore, he details the engineer found that the existing master bedroom was a back porch that was converted into a master bedroom without permits. In addition, that the existing structure has a slew of other code violations such as the ceiling height only being about 6 ft in height. To showcase the existing and proposed he points to the poster board that his wife is holding to the areas of the project. Afterwards, he states that he already spoke with his neighbor and received their approval for the extension. Commissioner Connelly asks to follow up questions regarding the specific extension and renovations that are being proposed. Mr. Morrison answers the questions but does not make it clear the specific setback that is needed. The board then becomes confused, Mrs. Morrison clarifies that they are only requesting a side setback. Commissioner Keller asks one last time to ensure it is only for the side setback not including the rear yard setback. Ms. Wallace confirms that the variance is only for the side setback. She further states the existing property does not meet the setback requirements from Schedule C and as a result of the addition it requires the property owner to apply for a variance because the “legal nonconforming” is being increased. During the public commentary portion, the neighbor located at 801 Rankin Ave wanted to be clear that this variance will not allow the existing structure to be built wider which would encroach on her property. Commissioner Gleason confirms that the structure will not get wider but will be constructed ‘straight back’. Commissioner Keller asks where the letter from the other neighbor is. Ms. Wallace mistakenly states the letter is in the packet, but it is the letter from the engineer. Commissioner Connelly inquires to Ms. Wallace what the rear and side yard setbacks are. Commissioner Keller asks the applicant if they have a copy of the letter from the other neighbor. Mrs. Morrison states to Ms. Wallace that the neighbor’s letter was dropped off at the office on Monday 9/9/24 and that she was told by the administrative staff it would be delivered to Ms. Wallace. Ms. Wallace asks who she dropped it off too and Mrs. Morrison states she gave it to the girl that sits on the front right of the office. Ms. Wallace apologizes for the inconvenience and the board arrives at the conclusion it is fine. Commissioner Keller calls for the vote. 6  AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Commissioner Keller made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Connelly. 1. The changes sought by the applicant will not produce an undesirable change to the neighborhood 2. The area variance is the only reasonable method of achieving the applicant’s goals 3. The variance is not substantial and will not detract from the character of the neighborhood 4. There will be no adverse effect on the physical or environmental nature of the neighborhood 5. The hardship is not self-created The motion was approved unanimously. E. Roehandra Arnasalam, request a Use Variance for 130 McClellan St (Tax # 49.51-4- 6.2) located in R-2 Two-Family District for full relief from Schedule A Use Regulations for Residential Districts from the zoning ordinance. Ms. Arnasalam presents her use variance application to the board. She begins the presentation by stating that when buying the property located at 130 McClellan St, she and her husband were unaware that the building was unable to be used as a commercial property (there is no basement or second floor). That the previous business was a headstone business, and the existing structure is designed exclusively as a commercial property. Her intentions with the property are to develop a ‘beauty supplies store’. Commissioner Gleason inquires if the business is intended for licensed beauticians or for the general public. Mrs. Arnasalam states it is for the general public. Commissioner Connelly inquires what the nature of the beaty supplies she intends on selling. Mrs. Arnasalam states a variety of products including commercial products as well but not as a wholesaler to other businesses. Commissioner Zawacki inquired if the applicant’s lawyer reviewed the contract and questioned the validity of the commercial use. Mrs. Arnasalam stated the lawyer did not. The property owner they purchased from was in a wheelchair and only had the property for one year. At the end of the contract and negotiation, (Mr. Arnasalam further explains this point) that the price would be lower if they purchased it in cash deal as is and due to the previous 7  property owner being in a wheelchair, he was unable to apply for a Use Variance himself. Mr. Arnasalam explains he did not know the zoning district was an R-2 until he spoke with the Zoning Officer (Ms. Wallace). He then explains that Ms. Wallace informed them that there was an existing variance from the 1950’s. Commissioner Keller questions Ms. Wallace directly about the existing variance and she responds by stating copies of the original variance are included in the application materials. Ms. Wallace then reads the exact wording of the variance and states the applicants needed to make an appeal due to the existing variance being written broadly that it was unclear if the current property owners were able to change the use. Commissioner Keller reads over the language of the existing variance and asks Ms. Wallace for a more detailed explanation. Commissioner Keller and Commissioner Zawacki discuss the variance together. Commissioner Keller overrules the zoning determination given to the applicant and interprets the existing variance as a right for the property owner to change the commercial use as of right to a beauty supply store. ZONING DETERMINATION OVERTURNED Commissioner Keller made a motion to grant the use variance as requested. Seconded by Commissioner Connelly. The motion was approved unanimously. F. Alena Lasher requests an Area Variance for Bailey St (tax parcel # 49.45-3-22) located in the R-2 Two-Family District to seek relief from §264-102 Ancillary parking areas. (B)(4). Mr. Cimino presents the area variance appeal on behalf of the property owner Ms. Lasher. He states to the board that the property is back again before going to the Planning Commission due to time constraints for loans. After this statement, he explains to the board that Ms. Lasher is in contract to purchase the Bailey St garage from the city but in order to utilize it as off- street parking an area variance is required pursuant to §264-102 Ancillary parking areas. (B)(4). Mr. Cimino stated that he used to know the previous owners, that the existing structures in the past were sold together. That the garage is a 7 bay, and that Ms. Lasher does not intend on knocking down the existing structure. Mr. Cimino misspoke and told the board that he did not believe the parking requirements ask for more than 1 parking space per unit. Commissioner Keller asks some clarifying questions and specifically asks if there is a variance for a noncontiguous lot and if they were asking for a smaller amount of parking spaces required. Commissioner Keller directs his next question to Ms. Wallace regarding off-street 8  parking. Ms. Wallace verified that the requirement is 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, technically the apartment building will require 6 parking spaces for the future tenants and that Mr. Cimino stated there are 7 bays. Commissioner Keller then directs his questions back to Mr. Cimino regarding the amount of spaces Ms. Lasher intends on having. Mr. Cimino states that whatever is necessary for the city requirements will be met and that next week they will be going through the site plan review with the Planning Commission. He further elaborates the existing structures layout and states that Ms. Lasher as a owner occupied landlord intends on using one of the bays for her own personal parking as well. Commissioner Zawacki questions the amount of dwelling units in the apartment building and parking requirements. Mr. Cimino clarifies this question by stating Ms. Lasher will be living there and using one of the bays. Mr. Cimino then further explains that ABD Engineering was confused but he knew for sure that the noncontiguous lots was the primary variance needed. The BZA makes the decision to disregard the second variance proposal and only vote on the one currently being presented. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Commissioner Keller made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Connelly. 1. The changes sought by the applicant will not produce an undesirable change to the neighborhood 2. The area variance is the only reasonable method of achieving the applicant’s goals 3. The variance is not substantial and will not detract from the character of the neighborhood 4. There will be no adverse effect on the physical or environmental nature of the neighborhood 5. The hardship is not self-created Condition: there must be 6 parking spaces for the 4 dwelling units. The motion was approved unanimously. 9 VII. Other Business VIII. Adjourn 7:25 p.m. motion made by Commissioner Connelly and seconded by Commissioner Keller. The motion was approved unanimously. 10