Zoning Board of Appeals

Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 9, 2024 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. 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, Mary D’Alessandro-Gilmore, Zoning Officer Nora Wallace, Corporation Counsel intern EXCUSED: Brendan Keller III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK None. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES The minutes were approved for the September 11th, 2024 meeting. The motion was made by Commissioner Connelly and seconded by Commissioner Lester. The motion carried 4-0. V. Old Business None. 1 VI. Applications: New Business A. Gary McCutcheon requests an area variance for Verona Ave (tax parcel # 39.28- 1-9) located in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District. For the existing lot of 4,000 square feet lot to be considered buildable. Pursuant to Schedule C Lot Development Standards the “Minimum Lot Area (square feet)” requires 5,000 square feet. Mr. Gary McCutcheon presented his appeal, by stating in 1999 he bought a buildable lot and now the minimum lot area requires 5,000 sq to make the lot buildable. When he bought the property the buildable lot standards required 4,000 sq. Currently, there is no value to the property without it being granted a variance. Commissioner Connelly inquired if a building is next door to his existing lot. Applicant states in response the neighboring lots are vacant, he was going to give it to his son, but his son is not interested. The surrounding lots are approximately the same size. AREA VARIANCE RESOLUTION 1. The applicant has demonstrated they cannot realize a reasonable return with the allowed uses 2. The hardship is not self-created 3. The property is unique to the area 4. The requested use variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood Commissioner Connelly made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Lester. The motion was approved unanimously. B. Kevin Ramnath requests a use variance for 1115 McClyman St (tax parcel # 49.49- 4-20) located in the R-2 Two-Family District to operate a “barbershop” and/or “retail sales and services”. Pursuant to Schedule A Use Regulations for Residential Districts a “barbershop” is not a permitted use. Kevin and Anita Ramnath present the appeal, Anita starts the presentation and begins to describe the way the application is organized. Kevin states the financial hardship and inability to find a reasonable return. Tells the board to reference page 6 apartment and page 7 which are existing apartments. Page 8 has the details concerning the retail area of the building for the barbershop. Page 9 is the building plans that they would like to be reviewed 2  and approved. Page 10 included the SEQA. The couple states that they have obtained the DBA from the state and reiterate the financial return issue. The final point, Anita details the apprenticeship program that is being created through the state and Ron Gardiner. She continues to state that they have followed the correct steps in being able to request an appeal. Finally, that a petition is included from the surrounding neighbors that are in support of the project. Commissioner Connelly inquires if the property has made an appeal before and the applicant states they have not. Commissioner Gleason inquired the availability of off-street parking and the hours of operation. Discussion: Wanted to verify that the reason for approval was not arbitrary. USE VARIANCE RESOULUTION Commissioner Connelly made a motion to approve the use variance. Seconded by Commissioner D’Alessandro-Gilmore. 5. The applicant has demonstrated they cannot realize a reasonable return with the allowed uses 6. The hardship is not self-created 7. The property is unique to the area 8. The requested use variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood Conditions: Use Variance restricted to operate a "barbershop only". The motion was approved unanimously. A. Ace & Clover Holdings, LLC requests a use variance for 1044 University Pl (tax parcel # 39.75-1-11) located in the R-2 Two-Family District. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing legal nonconforming use of a "multifamily dwelling” (6 dwelling units) by creating two additional apartments on the third floor. Pursuant to Schedule A Use Regulations for Residential Districts a “multifamily dwelling” is not a permitted use. Lawyer representing the applicant begins the presentation, stating that the property owner is here for a Use Variance due to existing apartments on the third floor that did not have a CO. The existing structure is a legal nonconforming multifamily dwelling in the R-2 Two Family District. The property owner’s lawyer stated that the initiative from Governor Hochul asking property owners to be creative with establishing places for people to live. The presentation went on to explain that the property owner would not make as much money as he could be making if there were two more apartments in the attic. Commissioner Lester replied to this portion of the presentation by explaining 3  the purpose of a variance. Emphasized the distinction between an Area Variance and a Use Variance. Stating that a Use Variance has a higher level of review and burden of proof. Commissioner Zawacki followed up with this explanation by stating that the board needs a financial report to showcase whether or not the applicant will be able to realize a reasonable return. The board decided to table the application. USE VARIANCE RESOLUTION Commissioner Lester made a motion to table the application as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Zawacki. VII. Other Business VIII. Adjourn 7:11 PM motion made by Commissioner Connelly and seconded by Commissioner D’Alessandro-Gilmore. The motion was approved unanimously. 4