Members Present: Peter Barber, Chairman
Patricia Aikens
Sharon Cupoli
Chuck Klaer
Mike Marcantonio
Susan Macri
Tom Remmert, Alternate
James Sumner
Janet Thayer, Counsel
____________________________________________________________________
Chairman Barber opened the meeting and pointed out the emergency exits to the left and rear of the room in the event they were needed.
CONTINUED CASES:
ACROSS THE STREET PUB - 1240 WESTERN AVENUE
Chairman Barber gave a brief background of the application.
Chairman Barber stated that there have been some new items added to the file: a letter from the applicant indicating that he has acquired 12 additional parking spaces, a petition from the McKownville Improvement Association with numerous signatures in opposition to the application and a few additional letters from residents.
Chairman Barber stated that tonight's hearing was for decision only because it was deemed by the Board to be difficult for someone who did not anticipate making a motion to have to make one.
Chairman Barber made a motion regarding this application:
"This is a request for a parking variance and special use permit regarding the expansion of the Across the Street Pub to allow the construction of a deck for property located at 1240 Western Avenue.
The Board finds the following facts:
- The application was duly noticed and has been heard by this Board on 9/7/05 and 12/7/05. The public hearing was closed and was continued to this evening for decision only.
- As noted previously, numerous residents have indicated their opposition to this request.
- Michael Arduini, owner of the property, is a responsible businessperson and deserves credit for coming before the Board to ask for the relief he has sought knowing full well that there might be some opposition. Nothing in this decision should it be adopted should be construed to distract from this fact that Mr. Arduini is a responsible businessperson. Mr. Arduini, at the prior hearing, had basically graciously stated that he understood if the Board were to deny the application and that he would continue with his business even if the application was denied.
- The Planning Board had recommended approval of this application but had conditioned it upon the ability of the parking to be handled on site.
- As for the special use permit, I would recommend a finding that there are really no conditions that could be imposed or put in place to successfully mitigate the impact upon the neighboring residential properties.
- The property borders on a substantial number of homes in a well-established residential neighborhood.
- Because this would be a warm season use, it would occur at times when residents would be expecting to be enjoying both their yards and have their windows open into the evening.
- The noise level from the deck even if food and drink were to be discontinued at a reasonable hour would still be incompatible with the neighborhood and negatively impact upon the neighbor's enjoyment of their property.
- Under present conditions it has been reported that all available parking spaces have been used with patrons needing to park on Arcadia Avenue. Many of the residents on that street have no driveways. The granting of the special use permit could add at least 20 more additional patrons which would further exacerbate an existing problem.
- The construction of the deck would result in a loss of two parking spaces.
- I believe that this in inconsistent with the Code requirement that all parking should be handled on site or through means of reciprocal parking agreement with sites within 300' if the property. The 12 additional parking spaces do not appear to be within 300' of the property and do not appear to be secured by a parking agreement.
- Off street parking serves two requirements - 1) it prevents interference between the traffic and the pedestrians and 2) it prevents the over development of a property.
- Up and down Rt. 20 there is a constant balancing going on between business use and residential use and I believe that the extension of the business use to a deck and to an outside use would put too much pressure and have too much of an impact upon the residential properties.
- The Chief Building Inspector and Zoning Administrator also notice this application as requiring 80 parking spaces if the permit were granted. There are apparently only 41 spaces available. The shortfall of approximately 39 spaces amounts to almost a 50% variance from the required parking and therefore it is in the Board's determination to be substantial. Granting this substantial variance would set a precedent that could restrict the Board in reviewing similar applications in the future.
It is for those reasons that I reluctantly move that the application be denied." Motion seconded by Chuck Klaer. Vote 4 - 3. (Macri, Marcantonio, Aikens in the negative).
MATTER OF INSURANCE AUTO AUCTIONS - NEIP
Chuck Klaer read the legal notice:
"Notice is hereby given that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Guilderland, New York, will hold a public hearing pursuant to Article V of the Zoning Law on the following proposition:
Interpretation Request No. 3919
Request of Scott Petit for an interpretation of the Zoning Law to: determine if the storage and sale of total-loss vehicles can be considered a junkyard as defined in the Town of Guilderland Zoning Law.
Per Article V Section 280-56B respectively
For property owned by: Northeastern Industrial Park
Situated as follows: Van Buren Blvd. Guilderland Center, NY 12085
Tax Map # 50.00-1-14.21 Zoned: IND
Plans open for public inspection at the Building Department during normal business hours. Said hearing will take place on the 18th of January, 2006 at the Guilderland Town Hall beginning at 7:30pm.
Dated: January 9, 2006"
The rest of the file contains the following, some of which pertain to the special use permit request: the mailing list to 98 property owners along with the appropriate fire district, a Short Environmental Assessment Form for the Special Use Permit, a memo from William West, Superintendent of Water and Wastewater Management, a letter from Dave Buicko authorizing Scott Petit to appear on behalf of the property owner, the Town's required forms for a Special Use Permit along with a narrative description of the property, site plan review by the Town Planning Board in which they recommend, the Town Planners comments which pertain to the Special Use Permit request, site plans and materials submitted by Hershberg & Hershberg along with letters from residents regarding the Special Use Permit/Variance and the interpretation request submitted
by the applicant.
The interpretation request is whether or not the proposed use by the applicant constitutes a junkyard as defined in the Town Zoning Law. The reason why this is important is because junkyards in Industrial Zones are prohibited.
Chairman Barber stated that they would be looking at the interpretation, not the site plan or environmental issues, etc.
John Stockli presented the request. Mr. Stockli stated that they do not undertake any of the activities that one would think traditionally of a junkyard such as storing vehicles, take parts off as needed and sell the parts and leave the car. Mr. Stockli stated that this is a very different operation.
Chairman Barber asked Mr. Stockli that if they were not a junkyard, which of the special uses in the code they would fall under.
Mr. Stockli replied 280-23B(3) - Manufacturing, fabrication, extraction, assembly, warehousing and other handling of materials except for those prohibited uses specified in Subsection C of this section.
Chairman Barber stated that Subsection C then takes you back to junkyards.
Mr. Stockli stated that they are assembling groups of vehicles for auction purposes and the purchasers will then take those vehicles.
Chairman Barber stated that the junkyard definition is very encompassing but it does have specific language that talks about the collecting, dismantling, storage, processing or salvaging of vehicles not in running condition; which these vehicles are.
Mr. Stockli replied that these vehicles are not in running condition but the definition of a junkyard is very vague and stated that just about any operation that has an inventory could fall within this definition. Mr. Stockli stated that NIAA is a very different operation; it is all based upon turning out the inventory of the total loss vehicle and moving it on to the next step in the process.
A brief video was provided for the Board detailing NIAA's history and their operation.
Michael Madden, VP of Real Estate for Insurance Auto Auctions, stated that they are not a junkyard; they do not cannibalize vehicles, they do not take them apart, do not sell parts or any of the actions which you traditionally associate with a junkyard. They sell the vehicles to parts guys, rebuilders, junkyards and sometimes mechanics. They do not take title of the car, they are a broker on behalf of the insurance industry.
Chairman Barber asked in New York State how long they would have possession of the car at the proposed site.
Mr. Madden replied that it is up to the state agency, but an average of 60 days.
Chairman Barber asked what happens to that car in the Industrial Park for that 60 days.
Mr. Madden replied that it is in inventory.
Chairman Barber asked if people come to look at the car.
Mr. Madden replied that there is a public inspection (buyers) and the buyers can come in and inspect the car. However, buyers all over the world can inspect the car and also bid on the car on the internet.
Chairman Barber asked where the auction actually took place.
Mr. Madden stated that the live auction would take place on site at the Industrial Park.
Chairman Barber asked how long between when they receive title to the auction.
Mr. Madden replied a few days.
Chairman Barber asked how one would pick up the car after winning the bid.
Mr. Madden replied either a tow truck or a car hauler.
Chairman Barber asked how many people would be there for a typical auction.
Mr. Madden replied that it depends on the size of the auction and the size of the facility. The Industrial Park will be a relatively small facility for IAA.
Chairman Barber asked if there would be any bodywork done on the cars.
Mr. Madden replied that there would be no bodywork done.
Chairman Barber asked if any of the cars would still have gas, oil or any other additives in them.
Mr. Madden replied that there still may be some fluids in the car but usually by the time a wrecked car arrives at their site most of the fluids have leaked out but if it is leaking at their facility any leakage on the property is cleaned up in an environmentally responsible manner and that the residue or waste is disposed of using a licensed vendor.
Chuck Klaer asked if there had been environmental claims against their company.
Mr. Madden replied that there had not been.
Pat Aikens asked approximately how many cars would be coming in and going out on a daily basis.
Mr. Madden stated that certain vehicles remain in inventory for a longer period of time (a hold vehicle), but it is difficult to determine how many cars come and go; it is based on the facility.
Chairman Barber asked if there were any questions or comments from the residents regarding the interpretation of a junkyard and read the definition of a junkyard.
Steve Porter of NEIP stated that this type of use has been a use that has occurred at the park with various tenants and has never been questioned by the Town.
Chairman Barber asked if there was any use being applied to this site right now.
Mr. Porter stated that right now this site is vacant.
Chairman Barber made a motion to close the public hearing on the interpretation request. Motion seconded by Sharon Cupoli.
Vote 7 - 0.
Chairman Barber made a motion to continue this interpretation request and the next meeting will be for decision only. Motion seconded by Sharon Cupoli. Vote 7 - 0.
MATTER OF WAYNE GOODNOW - 31 ABLEMAN AVENUE
Sharon Cupoli read the legal notice:
"Notice is hereby given that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Guilderland, New York, will hold a public hearing pursuant to Articles III & V of the Zoning Law on the following proposition:
Special Use Permit Request No. 3921
Request of Goodnow's Driving School for a Special Use Permit under the Zoning Law to permit: the use of a portion of an existing single family home as an office for a driving school, a customary home occupation.
Per Articles III & V Sections 280-14 & 280-52 respectively
For property owned by: Wayne and Bettye Goodnow
Situated as follows: 31 Ableman Avenue Albany, NY 12203
Tax Map # 15.16-1-10 Zoned: R15
Plans open for public inspection at the Building Department during normal business hours. Said hearing will take place on the 18th of January, 2006 at the Guilderland Town Hall beginning at 7:30pm.
Dated: January 9, 2006"
The rest of the public file consists of the mailing list to 67 neighboring property owners and the appropriate fire district, the Town's required forms for a Special Use Permit, the Short Environmental Assessment Form for this Unlisted Action, the Town Planners comments, and the Town Planning Board's recommendation.
The Town Planner's comments are as follows: "The applicant is seeking a special use permit to use a small portion of his home as a home occupation for a driving school. The applicant is the sole employee and all business takes place off site. A business car is parked in the driveway. No planning objections."
The Town Planning Board recommended with no conditions or suggestions.
Wayne Goodnow, applicant, presented the case.
Chairman Barber stated that Mr. Goodnow used to have this same business off Suzanne Court.
Mr. Goodnow stated that his business is very unobtrusive because his business is on the road.
Chairman Barber stated that his office is clearly less than 25% of the structure.
Chairman Barber asked if he was running his business there at the present time.
Mr. Goodnow stated that DMV had inspected the premises but he does not have his license from DMV yet to operate at this residence.
Chairman Barber asked if there were any questions or comments from the residents. There were none. Chairman Barber made a motion to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Sharon Cupoli. Vote 7 - 0.
Chairman Barber made a motion of non-significance in this Unlisted Action:
"This Board has conducted a review to ascertain whether the granting of this special use permit for a home occupation to the Goodnow Driving School operated by Wayne Goodnow will have a negative impact upon the environment. Based upon our review of the application, the applicant's statements this evening and also comments provided by various Boards, we can determine that this application if granted will not have a significant impact upon the environment and that a negative declaration under SEQRA should be issued." Motion seconded by Sharon Cupoli. Vote 7 - 0.
Chairman Barber made a motion for approval of:
Special Use Permit Request No. 3921
Request of Goodnow's Driving School for a Special Use Permit under the Zoning Law to permit: the use of a portion of an existing single family home as an office for a driving school, a customary home occupation.
Per Articles III & V Sections 280-14 & 280-52 respectively
For property owned by: Wayne and Bettye Goodnow
Situated as follows: 31 Ableman Avenue Albany, NY 12203
Tax Map # 15.16-1-10 Zoned: R15
The motion is granted upon the following findings of fact:
v This public hearing was duly noticed and conducted this evening. Notice was supplemented by mailing the legal notice to neighboring property owners.
v No residents provided either written or oral comments tonight at the public hearing.
v The Board adopted a negative declaration under SEQRA by a unanimous vote.
v The site plan review by the Town Planning Board was to recommend and the Town Planner also noted no planning objections.
v The Board also finds that the applicant has operated this business at 6962 Suzanne Court since November 2000 with a Special Use Permit granted by this Board and there have been no complaints regarding operation of this home occupation.
v All business associated with this driving school occurs off site.
v The proposed use meets all of the requirements for a home occupation, it occupies less than 25% of the structure and is operated by Mr. Goodnow, who is the sole employee.
v This home occupation is clearly incidental and secondary to the primary use of the dwelling as a residence and will not create any additional traffic as the operation of the driving school occurs off-site.
The Board grants this request with the following conditions:
v Continued compliance with 280-5 which sets forth the requirements for a customary home occupation.
v No sign other than that permitted for a home occupation under 280-26 of the Town Code.
The Zoning Administrative Office is hereby authorized to issue the permits necessary to implement this decision.
If this Special Use Permit is not exercised within one year of date of issuance, it is hereby declared to be null and void and revoked in its entirety.
Motion seconded by Sharon Cupoli. Vote 7 - 0.
MATTER OF CARLO AND KIM SPANO - 1810 WESTERN AVENUE
Sue Macri read the legal notice:
"Notice is hereby given that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Guilderland, New York, will hold a public hearing pursuant to Articles III, IV & V of the Zoning Law on the following proposition:
Special Use Permit/Variance Request No. 3922
Request of Carlo and Kim Spano for a Variance of the Regulations/Special Use Permit under the Zoning Law to permit: the construction of a 44' x 16' single story building, to be used as a seasonal ice cream parlor, to an existing nonconforming shopping center. 38 parking spaces will be provided. A variance to allow 12 parking spaces in a required rear yard is requested.
Per Articles III, IV & V Sections 280-20, 280-31 & 280-51 & 52 respectively
For property owned by: Carlo and Kim Spano
Situated as follows: 1810 Western Avenue Albany, NY 12203
Tax Map # 52.09-5-8 Zoned: LB
Plans open for public inspection at the Building Department during normal business hours. Said hearing will take place on the 18th of January, 2006 at the Guilderland Town Hall beginning at 7:30pm.
Dated: January 9, 2006"
The file consists of the mailing list to 56 neighboring property owners, the completed forms for Variance/Special Use Permit, a Short Environmental Assessment Form for this Unlisted Action, Albany County Planning Board's recommendation and the Town Planners comments, the Town Planning Board's site plan review.
Albany County Planning Board's recommendation of October 20, 2005 was disapprove without prejudice pending the receipt of a traffic study from a qualified engineer.
The Town Planner had the following comments: The applicant is requesting a special use permit to construct an 1100sf addition which would house an ice cream shop. This would be an add on to the existing commercial building which contains Sbarcheesy's Pizza and Westmere Liquor. The applicant also requires approval for the expansion of a non-conforming use since our zoning no longer allows multiple use commercial buildings. My comments are as follows:
- Based on the proposed layout and width of the lot, there is no need for two curb cuts. Eliminating one cut would allow for a safer and controlled access, a major goal of our Comprehensive Plan. However, if two curbcuts remain, they should be one way in and one way out, and should be significantly narrowed.
- The plan shows 30ft from the front island to the parking. Since only 24' is required for a two-way drive aisle, there is an opportunity to greatly enhance the front green space.
- There is an informal pathway through the southwest corner of this property. It does not show on the plan, but all effort should be made to incorporate this path since an ice cream shop is a natural draw for kids and families from the residential neighborhood to the south.
- There are no queuing or seating areas shown on the plan. An area where people can safely line up at the window should be established and this area should have a separation from the vehicular flow.
- There are no elevation drawings in the file. The Zoning Board should insure that the addition blends with a cohesive, attractive façade for the building.
The Town Planning Board's site plan review: "Recommend with the following - eliminate parking in front of proposed addition and provide a curb convenient seating area with a sidewalk connection to the parking in the rear. Narrow curb cuts in front to a standard one-way in and one-way out configuration, provide logical sidewalk connection to adjoining properties, provide a landscaping plan including expanded curbed area in front, and as a suggestion - consider expanding seating area in rear of building and reconfiguration of and reduction of parking, provide a crosswalk for direct pedestrian access from Western Avenue to the structure."
Kim Spano, applicant, presented the case. Ms. Spano provided a plan depicting some of the recommendations of the Planning Board - a seating area in front of the proposed addition eliminating two parking places, a concrete slab and a sidewalk that would run along the side of the building, a post and rail fence that will encompass the concrete slab on the back and the front. There will be extra greenspace with potted plants in the front, a crosswalk from the sidewalk to the ice cream parlor, the sidewalk will be extended to the 16' setback of the sidewalk on Cosimo's Plaza side making it 45' long.
Chairman Barber stated that the curbcut seemed excessive for the use; they could either eliminate one or narrow both of them to one-way in, one-way out.
Chairman Barber asked about the expanded seating area in the back.
Ms. Spano stated that they had expanded it some.
Chairman Barber stated that the Board would like to see a landscaping plan and also the elevation of the proposed addition.
Chairman Barber stated that under the code you can expand a prior nonconforming use by 25% and this would be an expansion of the "mall" rather than just one of the businesses in the mall.
Chairman Barber asked the applicant if they had addressed the issue of a traffic study.
Ms. Spano stated that she went to DOT and she was able to acquire a traffic count for Western Avenue.
There was discussion regarding the façade.
Sharon Cupoli asked about the height of the light poles.
Ms. Spano stated that they were going to try and conform them with the Cabernet Café's light poles.
Chairman Barber asked if there were any questions or comments from the residents. There were none.
Chairman Barber made a motion to continue to allow the applicant to address the issues discussed: traffic study, landscaping, and final revised site plan and elevation drawings. Motion seconded by Sharon Cupoli. Vote 7 - 0.
MATTER OF LESLIE COUGHTRY - 6332 FRENCH'S HOLLOW ROAD
Pat Aikens read the legal notice:
"Notice is hereby given that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Guilderland, New York, will hold a public hearing pursuant to Articles III & V of the Zoning Law on the following proposition:
Use Variance/Special Use Permit Request No. 3918
Request of Leslie Coughtry for a Use Variance of the regulations/Special Use Permit under the Zoning Law to permit: an in-law apartment in a portion of a preexisting two-family home.
Per Articles III & V Sections 280-13 & 280-51 & 52 respectively
For property owned by: Helen B. Coughtry
Situated as follows: 6332 French's Hollow Road Altamont, NY 12009
Tax Map # 39.00-2-55.1 Zoned: AGR
Plans open for public inspection at the Building Department during normal business hours. Said hearing will take place on the 18th of January, 2006 at the Guilderland Town Hall beginning at 7:30pm.
Dated: January 9, 2006"
The file consists of the mailing list to 17 neighboring property owners and the appropriate fire district, the completed forms for a Special Use Permit for an in law apartment, a Short Environmental Assessment Form for this Unlisted Action, a narrative, a sketch of the existing in-law apartment, the Town Planners comments, the site plan review by the Town Planning Board and some survey maps and sketches of the property.
The Town Planning Board's site plan review of 2/11/06 was recommend with no suggestions or conditions.
The Town Planner's comments are as follows: The applicant is seeking a special use permit for an existing in-law apartment within a property the owners are trying to sell. There is adequate on-site parking. No objection contingent on the future buyer conforming to all applicable laws regulating such accessory units.
Leslie Coughtry, applicant, presented the request. Ms. Coughtry stated that the main house is three floors and a basement and the original garage is the second family of the two-family dwelling. Ms. Coughtry stated that she did not realize that an in-law apartment needed approval from the Town.
Chairman Barber asked if the property was just for sale or if there was a contract pending.
Ms. Coughtry replied that they were hoping that they have a contract.
Chuck Klaer asked if there were kitchens in all of the units.
Ms. Coughtry replied that there is a kitchen in the main house and the in law apartment, and one in the garage apartment, which is legal.
Don Cropsey replied that this is a building with two dwelling units, they are not separately sold, it is not a condominium and it is one tax parcel.
Chairman Barber asked if the in-law apartment met the dimensional criteria.
Don Cropsey replied that it does.
Chuck Klaer stated that it appears that they have a three apartment building by another name.
Chairman Barber stated he thought that was wrong. Chairman Barber stated that this is two single-family dwellings; one of which has an accessory in-law apartment, it is still a two family dwelling.
Chuck Klaer stated that he was trying to understand from a buyer's perspective who may live in each of the three units.
Chairman Barber replied that the two duplexes could be completely unrelated people, the only requirement is the one that has the in-law apartment has to be related by blood or marriage to the owner of the unit to which the apartment is attached.
Chairman Barber stated that it is a duplex, that is why it is prior nonconforming.
Chairman Barber reviewed the criteria needed for an in-law apartment.
Chairman Barber asked if there were any questions or comments from the residents. There were none. Chairman Barber made a motion to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Sharon Cupoli. Vote 7 - 0.
Chairman Barber made a motion of non-significance in this Unlisted Action:
"This Board has conducted a review of the application of Leslie Coughtry on behalf of Helen Coughtry for a special use permit for an in-law apartment for property located at 6332 French's Hollow Road. Our review of this application consisted of our review of the literature submitted by the applicant along with the comments provided by the Town Planning Board and the Town Planner and also comments provided at the public hearing this evening. Based upon our review of these materials, I move that a negative declaration should be issued under SEQRA and that there will be no significant environmental impacts caused by the granting of this special use permit." Motion seconded by Sharon Cupoli. Vote 7 - 0.
Chuck Klaer asked if there was anything about this proposal that precludes further subdivision of this property.
Chairman Barber stated that there was not, they would have to appear before the Planning Board and make their case.
Chairman Barber made a motion for approval of:
Special Use Permit Request No. 3918
Request of Leslie Coughtry for a Special Use Permit under the Zoning Law to permit: an in-law apartment in a portion of a preexisting two-family home.
Per Articles III & V Sections 280-13 & 280-51 & 52 respectively
For property owned by: Helen B. Coughtry
Situated as follows: 6332 French's Hollow Road Altamont, NY 12009
Tax Map # 39.00-2-55.1 Zoned: AGR
The motion is granted upon the following findings of fact:
v This public hearing was duly noticed and held this evening. Notice was supplemented by mailing to 17 nearby property owners and no residents provided either written or oral comments here this evening.
v The Board adopted a negative declaration by a unanimous vote.
v The Town Planning Board and the Town Planner had no objections to this request.
v The Board further finds that the in-law apartment meets all of the dimensional and family related requirements for an in-law apartment
v The only question that may be raised is whether this is a permitted use within an agricultural zone. That is because the in-law apartment provision is set forth in Section 280-14C 11 - residential districts. However, the phrase residential district is defined as including agricultural districts. Under these circumstances and consistent with this Board's approach in reviewing other similar applications in agricultural districts, the Board finds that the in-law apartment as proposed is proper.
The Board grants this request with the following conditions:
v The applicant shall file a deed with the Albany County Clerks Office that is consistent with the Town Code requirements; a covenant indicating that the apartment is permitted only when the main dwelling is occupied by a person or persons related to the owner by blood, adoption, or marriage.
v Within 60 days of the granting of this Special Use Permit applicant must provide the Building Department with proof of the filing of this deed.
v This permit shall cease when the use of the property no longer meets the requirements for an in-law apartment.
v Upon the cessation of that use, all kitchen related improvements shall be removed from the property as it relates to the in-law apartment.
The Zoning Administrative Office is hereby authorized to issue the permits necessary to implement this decision.
If this Special Use Permit is not exercised within one year of date of issuance, it is hereby declared to be null and void and revoked in its entirety.
Motion seconded by Sharon Cupoli. Vote 6 - 1. (Sumner)
The Board approved a one-year variance extension for Richard Adams on Settles Hill Road. Vote 6 - 1. (Klaer)
| 
