►
Description
The Committee reviewed Ordinance 20.92.20. The action is a proposed ordinance to amend the zoning map of the City of Albany for the following properties: 1057 Washington Avenue and 1061 Washington Avenue. The two properties are currently zoned MU-NC, which is inconsistent with all other residential properties located in the 12th Ward. The amendment would rezone the properties to R-2, which is consistent with the current use of the properties and the surrounding neighborhood.
B
Okay,
good
evening,
everyone,
this
is
the
monday
january
11th
to
2021
meeting
of
the
planning
economic
development,
land
use.
Committee
committee
members,
president
myself,
kathy
fahey,
the
chair
of
choice,
council,
member
joyce,
love,
council,
member
judy,
daute,
council,
member
tom
holly,
and
I
don't
see
alfredo
yet
elf
councilmember
ballerin,
but
I
know
he's
coming.
We
also
have
council
member
mike
o'brien
council
member
jack
flynn.
B
We
have
our
staff
danielle
gillespie,
our
city
clerk,
michelle
andre,
our
senior
legislative
aide,
our
council,
john
rafael
piccardo,
and
we
also
have
brad
glass
from
the
department
of
planning,
amy
levine
from
corporation
council's
office
and
councilmember
bellerin
is
here
and
then
we
have
individuals
from
the
community.
Welcome
everyone.
B
We're
here
tonight
to
discuss
ordinance,
20
92
20.,
that's
an
ordinance
amending
chapter
375
of
the
code
of
the
city
of
albany.
That's
the
united
unite
unified,
sustainable
development,
ordinance
changing
the
zoning
classification
of
1057,
washington,
avenue
and
1061
washington
avenue
from
mixed
use,
neighborhood
center
to
residential
to
family
and
amending
the
zoning
map.
Accordingly.
B
Okay,
so
this
legislation
is
brought
forth
by
council
member
michael
bryan.
So
what
I
thought
we'd
do
is
start
with
you
mike
and
briefly
discuss
why
you're
bringing
this
forth
and
then
I'd
like
to
go
into
public
comment
get
and
then
we
can.
We
can
have
more
discussion
on
it.
So
if
you
could
go
ahead
mike.
C
Okay,
well,
this
involves
some
houses
that
are
washington
avenue,
just
up
just
west
of
the
intersection
with
calvin
avenue,
and
you
may
remember
that
this
site
was
the
subject
of
a
proceeding
in
front
of
the
planning
board
involving
stewards.
C
C
But
a
number
of
the
neighbors
and
hyde
who's
going
to
be
hyde.
C
Clark
is
going
to
be
commenting
because
I
see
he's
in
the
queue
they
along
hide
and
those
neighbors
took
up
a
petition
for
a
rezone,
and
the
argument
that
they
made
was
that,
in
fact,
those
two
properties,
1057
and
1061
were
built
as
two
family
homes
have
always
existed
as
two
family
homes,
and
even
before,
certainly
before
the
current
zoning,
and
even
before
the
zoning
before
that,
I
believe
the
date
of
those
homes
makes
them
certainly
more
than
80
years
old,
probably
more
closer
to
90
years
old
and
the
previous
code
had
them
zoned
as
commercial
office,
which
was
kind
of
an
anomaly,
because
in
fact
they
were
only
used
as
two
family
homes.
C
Although
in
that
area
of
washington
avenue,
there
are
some
small
businesses,
such
as
family
daycare
and
a
midwifery,
and
a
dentist
office
which
were
legal
because
they
maintain
residential
components
and
the
only
commercial
business.
C
I
believe
that
was
ever
in
either
of
those
businesses
according
to
the
owner
was
a
small
real
estate
office
which,
at
the
planning
board
meeting
which
we
had
regarding
this
amy
levine,
gave
her
opinion
that,
in
fact,
nothing
is
really
changing
for
them,
because
they
could
continue
to
use
it
for
that
same
kind
of
small
business,
one
that
doesn't
impact
the
neighborhood
and
they
have
the
off-street
parking.
C
So
it's
really
an
effort
to
preserve
the
character
of
what
they
have
always
been
and
prevent
the
you
know.
This
would
be
the
only
if
you
look
at
washington
avenue
from
manning
boulevard
west,
all
the
way
to
the
state
of
office
campus,
it's
residential
with
the
exception
of
calvin
avenue
and
calvin
avenue
is
kind
of
an
anomaly
how
the
gas
station
arrived
on
carbon
avenue.
That
predates
me.
I
believe
that
was
under
the
days
of
corning
as
mayor,
it's
technically
a
confident
avenue
address.
C
As
I
understand
it,
not
a
washington
avenue
address
and
the
same
with
the
bank
building.
I
can
understand
the
bank,
because
that
could
have
been
commercial
office
and
convent
avenue
right
down
to
washington
with
his
own
commercial
office,
but
we
thought
that
that
commercial,
at
least
I
and
the
neighbors
thought
that
that
commercial
losses
characterization
ended.
You
know
at
the
end
of
the
property
that
key
band
called.
C
It
turns
out
that
it
ended
that
that
it
went
further,
those
two
properties
further
west,
and
so
when
the
new
code
was
adopted,
that's
why
you
know
kind
of
unbeknownst
to
us
it.
It
included
those
two
properties
as
mixed
use,
neighborhood
center,
even
though
in
fact,
they've
always
been
used
as
residential.
C
So
the
neighbors
petitioned
to
have
this
rezoned
as
what
it
looks
like
as
and
that's
why
we're
here
and
we
did
a
short
form
of
oh,
we
went
to
the
city
planning
board
and
they
and
they
said-
and
they
basically
approved
it
but
said,
consider
perhaps
mixed-use
neighborhood
edge,
which,
in
my
conversations
with
the
neighbors
that
would
allow
a
lot
of
heavier
uses
than
it
ever
could
have
had.
Under
you
know
commercial
office
heavier
uses
such
as
indoor
entertainment,
bars,
restaurants.
C
I
don't
have
the
full
list,
but
so
obviously
the
neighborhood
does
not
think
that
using
it
as
converting
it
to
mixed
use,
neighborhood
edge
would
be
of
any
consequence,
and
you
know
their
feeling
is
that
in
fact
it's
always
existed
as
a
residential.
B
B
All
right
so
that's
an
introduction,
and
so
why
don't
we
move
to
public
comment
now
and
I
have
a
list
here.
Let's
say
number,
I
have
gary
demolo,
it's
gary.
Are
you
here.
D
D
D
Is
thank
you
good
evening.
My
name
is
gary
demolowicz
and,
along
with
my
wife,
we
are
the
owners
of
1057
washington
avenue
our
family
at
one
time.
Have
it
all
over
three
buildings
on
washington
avenue
and
lived
in
the
neighborhood
for
over
60
years?
So
we
know
the
neighborhood
better
than
most
I'd
like
to
talk
about
the
inconsistency
in
the
petition
in
some
of
those
quotes
that
the
councilman
made
first
of
all,
comparing
washington
avenue
to
rosemont
street
is
like
comparing
apples
to
oranges.
D
Rosemary
is
a
dead
end
street
with
single
family
homes
with
no
through
traffic.
One
thing
rosemont
street
does
have
in
common
with
the
rest.
Is
that
their
backyards,
all
butt
up
against
commercial
property?
Just
like
my
property
on
the
east
side,
it
is
commercial
before
they
bought
their
homes
and
it
was
commercial
when
they
bought
before
they
were
there
and
it's
a
commercial
now.
Excuse
me
I'm
talking
fast,
because
I
only
have
five
minutes
now.
Washington
avenue
is
a
four-lane
road
which
our
building
is
on
the
emergency
room
for
police
fire
and
ambulance.
D
It's
a
truck
and
bus
route.
It
has
over
twenty
five
thousand
cars.
A
day
passed
in
front
of
our
building
on
washington
avenue
and
as
again
as
a
gas
station,
dentist
offices
and
attorneys
offices
and
multi-unit
apartments,
wide
petition
compares
rosemont
street
and
the
people
on
rosemont
street
to
washington
avenue
makes
no
sense.
Our
property
is
100
feet
from
covent
avenue.
Corbin
avenue
is
what
we
should
be
compared
to
with
respect
to
the
signatures
on
a
petition
and
the
letter
that
was
sent
in
you
would
think
that
my
house
was
on
rosemont
street.
D
D
This
they
don't
want
another
stewards
or
any
other
kind
of
development
to
come
in
on
that
property,
so
it
with
respect
to
the
the
with
the
the
property
itself
and
why
they
want
to
change
the
zoning,
because,
with
respect
to
the
letter
that
that
you
received
today,
it
says
they
want
to
ensure
that
there's
no
future
development.
D
D
With
I
like
to
also
mention
a
memorandum
from
chris
spencer
to
the
planning
board
stating
that,
based
on
their
objections,
the
review
of
the
spanners?
It's
the
planning
board
department,
your
own
department
recommended
that
the
polls
proposal
be
approved
and
is
consistent
with
the
standards
so
totally
different
from
what
the
councilman
says.
D
A
D
Oh
boy,
okay,
so
thank
you.
D
Let
me
get
it
I'd
like
to
know
in
my
30
years
in
the
legislature
representing
the
14th
ford
part
of
the
8th
board,
I
never
saw
zoning
changes,
a
mix
used
to
r2
it's
bad
public
policy
and
please
note
the
planning
board
agrees
with
me.
They
couldn't
get
a
second
to
approve
this
change.
They
support
my
position
and
when
I
asked
the
committee
to
do
the
same
vote,
no
on
this
ordinance
and
let's
just
kill
it
in
committee,
where
it
should
be
and
move
forward.
D
E
F
Hello,
madame
chairman,
thank
you
very
much,
I'm
sandra
damalowitz,
who
also
owns
1057
washington
avenue,
and
that
is
not
true
that
1057
washington
avenue
has
just
been
residential
occupied.
F
It's
very
clear
that
it
comes
to
me
that
this
is
all
about
blocking
stewards.
There
was
no
idea
to
rezone
my
property.
I
understand
you
feel
the
need
to
represent
the
people
that
are
opposed
to
a
stewards,
but
let's
be
fair.
Why
is
it
as
many
as
50
or
more
people
in
the
immediate
area,
as
close
as,
if
I
put
my
hand
out
the
window,
I
could
actually
touch
these
people
that
are
in
agreement
of
putting
a
stewards
there.
So
why
aren't
they
being
representative
but
instead
they're
being
ignored?
F
B
G
Please
all
right
hello,
my
name
is
tim
hines
and
alongside
my
wife,
we
are
the
owners
of
1061
washington
ave.
Our
family
has
owned
the
property
since
2006,
but
before
that
my
uncle
lived
there
for
decades.
My
uncle
ran
his
real
estate
business
out
of
the
house
for
many
years
as
well.
While
I've
not
used
the
property
as
commercial
since
I've
owned
it,
I
do
reserve
the
right
to
do
so.
The
zoning
currently
is
mixed
use
and
has
been
that
way
forever.
G
This
is
essentially
grandfathered
in
the
house
used
to
be
located
on
the
corner
where
the
bank
is,
the
house
was
moved
in
order
to
put
the
bank
in
the
zoning
lines
have
been
correctly
designed
around
my
property
to
ensure
that
it
could
still
be
used
as
commercial
at
any
time
in
the
future.
I'm
very
upset
that
the
city
is
trying
to
take
this
away.
Washington
ave
is
a
main
road
with
many
businesses
located
on
it.
My
dentist
office
is
located
on
washington
ave
less
than
a
mile
away
from
my
property
at
1061
washington,
ave
dorian.
G
Excuse
me,
the
ordinance
comparing
washington
after
rosemont,
which
is
not
a
great
comparison,
rosemont
is
dead
in
a
residential
street.
Washington
app
should
be
compared
to
colvin
app,
which
should
also
be
in
between
kolvin
app.
Has
many
businesses
located
on
it?
This
is
a
bad
policy.
This
is
coming
up.
I
believe
there
is
a
political
agenda
going
on
here.
The
last
line
of
this
notice
says
there
are
no
fiscal
impacts.
None
as
there
are
no
fiscal
impacts
for
anyone
voting
on
us.
There
are
fiscal
impacts
for
me
and
my
neighbors
properties.
G
B
Okay,
thank
you
very
much,
mr
heinz,
and
now
we're
going
to
hear
from
hyde
clark.
H
All
right,
thank
you,
councilwoman.
My
name
is
hyde
clark.
I'm
the
president
of
the
upper
washington
avenue
neighborhood
association,
a
resident
at
39
van
buren
street,
as
the
neighborhood
association
became
aware
of
the
zoning
classifications
for
these
properties
and
that
that
was
during
the
storch
proposal.
H
That's
because
stewart's
proposed
to
demolish
these
two
residential
buildings
as
part
of
the
redevelopment
of
the
old
key
bank,
and
at
that
point
to
me,
it
was
clear
that
it
wasn't
necessarily
a
stewards
issue.
It
was
more
a
zoning
classification
issue,
because
the
zone
for
these
two
residential
properties
is
mixed
use,
commercial.
H
It
then
allows
any
future
developer
to
look
at
the
old
key
bank
and
try
to
bundle
these
properties
together
and
thus
encroach
on
the
neighbor
on
the
neighbors
that
are
currently
on
rosemont
when
they,
when
those
neighbors
purchase
their
homes
on
rosemont,
they
purchase
their
homes
next
to
residential
properties.
Next
to
two
family
properties
and
the
fact
that
there's
parking
lots
behind
the
other
parcels,
I
don't
think
that
that's
a
factor
that
should
be
considered
it's
like
in
the
zoning
drawing
they
just
drew
a
straight
line
as
opposed
to
looking
at
what
the
parcels.
I
H
And
what
their
current
use
is
like
to
point
out.
The
property
owner
stated
that
there's
a
number
of
residential
a
number
of
businesses
on
washington,
ave
and
says
that
the
mixed
use,
zoning
classification
is
no
different
for
their
properties,
but
that
whole
list,
which
is
1035
washington,
nav,
1058,
996,
959,
967,
975,
washington,
victor
washington
manning
the
zoning
classifications
for
all
those
properties
are
as
follows:
r1m
r2,
r2,
r1m,
r1m,
r1m,
r1m
and
rm.
H
So
the
the
inconsistency
is
that
these
two
properties
are
zoned
mixed
use,
commercial,
the
we
did
submit
a
petition
with
over
45
neighbors
again
many
of
those
that
are
on
rosemont.
That's
because
if
those
two
buildings
were
to
be
demolished
as
in
the
stewart's
proposal,
you
then
have
that
commercial
use
of
budding
right
up
on
these
residential
homes.
H
The
property
owner
stated
that
his
time
on
the
county
legislature
he's
never
seen
a
rezone
from
mixed
use:
commercial
to
r2.
I
don't
know
if
that
has
any
weight.
This
is
the
usda
was,
you
know,
passed
in
2017
2018.
H
The
purpose,
one
of
the
purposes
of
the
usdo
is
to
have
time
to
review
what
was
done
to
look
at
what
what
legislation
was
passed,
what
zoning
districts
and
make
corrections-
and
I
know
the
council-
continues
to
work
in
its
review
of
the
usdo
to
make
any
corrections
on
any
oversight,
so
I
did
submit
a
a
copy
of
the
zoning
map.
I
zoomed
in
on
the
upper
washington
avenue
neighborhood
association
and
submitted
that
to
the
council
for
your
consideration.
H
As
you
can
see,
all
the
way
up
through
washington
ave
are
those
residential
zoning
districts.
I
don't
believe
that
this
is
taking
anything
away
from
the
property
owner,
there's
no
vested
right.
There's
no,
you
know
we're
mixing
up
zoning
terms
right,
there's
no
grandfathering,
there's
not
a
current
commercial
use
at
those
properties.
So
the
idea
that
there's
some
sort
of
grandfathered
right
to
have
a
commercial
property
is
an
incorrect
statement.
H
The
the
statement
that
there's
businesses
that
are
commercial
on
washington
have
you're
talking
about
a
use
you're,
not
talking
about
a
zoning
classification.
It's
clear,
the
zoning
classification
is
residential
and
that's
why
I
believe
that
the
council
should
vote
in
favor
of
this
to
correct
the
two
properties
too.
Residential
would
be
consistent
with
all
the
other
properties.
H
You
know
if,
if
the
property
owners
did
want
to
have
a
business
or
other
use
of
the
property,
they
would
then
have
to
go
through
the
planning
process.
If
it
wasn't
a
permitted
use,
they
would
still
have
the
opportunity
to
obtain
a
use,
variance
and
that
further
protects
the
residents
from
a
developer
that
tries
to
bundle
these
three
properties
together.
The
current
use
is
to
family.
This
actually
makes
it
so
two
families
allowed
30
seconds,
and
that's
that's
all
I
have
for
tonight.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration.
B
Okay,
thank
you
and
then
we
have
paul
lamar,
hello,
paul.
J
Hi
there,
thanks
for
taking
our
comments
tonight,
sure
sure.
B
J
B
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
now.
I
think
that
all
the
community
members
who
wish
to
speak
have
spoken.
We
do.
We
did
receive
some
written
comments
and
danielle.
Could
you
read
zach
simpson's
comment?
Please.
K
Yes,
madam
chair,
my
name
is
zachary
simpson
and
I
am
the
vice
president
of
upper
washington
avenue,
neighborhood
association.
I
would
like
to
state
my
strong
support
for
council
member
o'brien's
proposed
ordinance
amending
the
properties
located
at
1057
and
1061
washington
avenue
from
mixed
use,
neighborhood
center
to
residential
2
family.
K
Over
these
last
few
years,
I
have
become
familiar
with
the
contents
of
the
united
unified
sustainability
development,
ordinance
usdo,
as
well
as
some
of
the
issues
associated
with
this
document
and
some
of
the
corrections
that
still
need
to
be
made.
This
is
another
example
where
corrections
must
be
made
to
make
the
subject
properties
more
consistent
with
their
current
use
and
surrounding
properties.
K
K
Second,
sorry,
my
computer
froze
it
took
a
second
to
come
back.
I
disagree
with
this
recommendation.
I
think
mixed
use.
Neighborhood
edge,
has
the
ability
to
allow
for
certain
uses
that
will
provide
problematic
that
will
prove
problematic
to
that
location
as
well
as
detrimentally
impact
surrounding
properties,
particularly
our
rosemont
street
neighborhoods.
In
light
of
that,
the
planning
board
recommendation
for
mixed
use,
neighborhood
edge,
should
be
discarded.
K
B
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
danielle.
So
I
guess
now
I
would
like
to.
We
did
receive
a
recommendation
from
the
planning
board
on
this
issue
and
I
was
wondering
if
brad
could
you
talk
about
the
recommendation
from
the
planning
board
somewhat.
L
Yeah,
I
mean
frankly
that
the
stewards
case
in
particular,
as
well
as
something
to
be
the
rezoning.
Rarely
do
we
see
this
many
varied
opinions
on
a
proposal
really
within
the
staff.
M
I'm
I'm
sorry.
I
need
to
interrupt
for
some
reason:
brad
you're,
somewhat
muted.
I
don't
know
if
you
if.
L
Okay,
you
know
I
was
just
trying
to
state
generally
that
there
were
very
mixed
opinions
about
one
I
think,
to
some
degree
you're
talking
about
the
future
of
how
this
site
or
this
area
is
going
to
be
developed.
L
You
know,
I
think
that
the
desire
is
for
the
two
homes
to
remain,
as
they
have
been
historically
as
two
family
dwellings
or
something
similar.
They
probably
should
be
rezoned
to
the
r2
district
or
something
similar.
If
the
desire
is
to
facilitate
you
know
I've.
I've
heard
I
can't
personally
speak
to
the
conditions
or
the
reuse
potential
of
the
key
bank
property,
but
I
have
some
have
spoken
to
challenges
with
the
reuse
of
that
property.
L
If
the
desire
is
to
accommodate
the
redevelopment
of
that
adjacent
sites,
you
know
it'd
probably
be
better
to
leave
it
in
the
mixed
use.
Zoning
district,
but
really
you
know,
I
don't
know
that,
there's
a
behemoth,
strong
opinion
from
the
planning
staff
one
way
or
the
other.
I
think
the
planning
board
was
trying
to
maybe
accommodate
some
of
the
commercial
uses
that
were
spoken
about
by
proposing
a
mixed-use
neighborhood
edge
zone
district,
which
does
allow
some
commercial
uses,
but
also
requires
certain
stipulations
that
requires
that
the
dwellings
be
made
to
remain.
B
I'm
sorry
brad
if
everyone
could
mute
themselves
when
someone
speaks.
L
So
I
mean
I'm
really
here
more
to
answer
questions
than
to
put
forward
a
a
really
strong
opinion,
one
way
or
the
other.
You
know
I
think,
okay
and
it's
up
to
the
council
to
decide,
can.
B
You
well,
I
know
I
I'll
start
and
then
maybe
we
can
go
around
with
other
council
members.
If
you
could-
and
this
is
for
you
brad,
can
you
talk
a
little
bit
about?
I
know
the
recommendation
was
to
possibly
consider
neighborhood
edge.
Can
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
that
would
allow.
L
Yeah,
I
mean
something:
a
neighborhood
edge,
for
instance
a
restaurant,
or
something
of
that
nature
would
be
a
conditional
use
that
would
see
a
planning
board
review
as
opposed
to
the
mixed
use,
neighborhood
center
district,
where
that
would
be
an
as
of
right
use.
So,
with
respect
to
certain
uses,
there's
a
higher
threshold
for
review,
there's
also
certain
provisions
that
we
accommodated
when
we
were
writing
the
the
zoning
document.
L
L
So
it's
sort
of
trying
to
balance
the
two
of
the
I
guess,
the
residential
district
as
well
as
commercial
districts
this
year
you
know.
I
know
people
have
said
it's
not
rosemont
street,
it's
colvin
avenue,
or
vice
versa.
Really,
it's
not
explicitly
either.
I
mean
these
are
two
properties
that
are
kind
of
right
caught
in
between.
So
I
think
there
is
some,
you
know,
merit
to
a
transition
of
sorts,
but
you
know
again,
it
all
depends
on
what
the
desire
is
for
the
for
the
future
of
these
sites.
Moving
forward.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
So,
let's
go
around
now
to
committee
members
with
questions
and
comments,
judy.
M
Yes,
I
the
thing
that
struck
me
when
you
know
I,
my
understanding
of
zoning
is
that
you
want
to
have
some
a
reasonable
plan
behind
what
you're
zoning
and
there's
compatible
uses
for
properties
that
are
adjacent
to
one
another,
and
I
found
it
interesting
in
looking
at
the
zoning
map
that
everything
else
along
washington
avenue
is
zone
r2
or
r1
r1m,
I
guess
and
and
those
are
properties
that
are
not
on
a
side
street
that
are
directly
facing
washington
avenue.
M
So
you
know
when
I
look
at
these
two
properties,
it
seems
to
me,
as
almost
as
though,
what
we're
doing
is
spot
zoning
to
allow
these
to
be
different,
zoned
differently
than
any
other
similar
property
in
the
area.
Now
I
understand
that
there
have
been
commercial
uses
of
this.
There
are
semi
commercial
uses
of
some
of
the
other
properties
along
washington
avenue,
but
my
understanding
is
those
are
predominantly
essentially
home
off.
M
You
know
old
home
office
uses
which
you
require
people
to
live
in
the
residence
and
those
properties
did
not
get
rezoned,
as
you
know,
for
mixed
use
there.
So
when
I
look
at
from
a
comprehensive
planning
standpoint,
that
is
what
I'm
looking
at
here.
It
makes
sense
for
that
one
piece
of
property:
that's
right
on
the
corner:
that's
a
bank
that
you
know
it's
sort
of
similar
to
the
gas
station.
M
Okay,
it
semi
fronts
on
carbon
avenue,
but
but
all
the
properties
I
mean,
there's
one
minor
exception
for
some
rm
and
we
have
throughout
the
city
anytime.
Something
was
already
a
three
or
four
apartments
in
it
we've
we
did
make
that
exception
to
bring
them
into
conformity
with
the
zoning.
K
We
write
to
express
our
support
for
council
member
o'brien's
application
to
amend
the
zoning
map
to
change
the
classification
of
1057
and
1061
washington
avenue
from
munc
mixed
use:
neighborhood
center
to
r2
two
family
residential
by
way
of
background
prior
to
the
adoption
of
the
current
unified
sustainable
development,
ordinance
in
2017
the
city
of
albany
zoning
ordinance,
in
effect
when
the
undersigned
neighbors
purchased
our
homes
zoned
the
subject
properties
as
commercial
office
with
the
passage
of
the
usdo,
the
properties
were
zoned
as
munc,
which
changed
the
scope
of
the
permissible
and
conditional
uses.
K
At
the
public
meeting,
slash
hearings
on
august
25,
2020
and
again
on
october
28th
of
2020.
The
planning
board
voted
to
deny
the
conditional
use
application,
while
stewart's
shop's
proposal
was
rightfully
denied.
The
zoning
of
these
properties
should
be
amended
to
ensure
that
future
development
proposals
that
are
similarly
out
of
scale
with
the
surrounding
uses
and
inconsistent
with
the
character
of
the
surrounding
neighborhood
are
not
permitted.
K
The
subject
prop
properties
face
washington,
avenue
and
all
of
the
other
properties
in
the
vicinity
on
washington
avenue
are
zoned
r,
1
or
r
2.
calvin
avenue
is
a
mixed
use
corridor.
However,
the
subject
properties
do
not
face
kelvin
ave
and
the
only
apparent
reason
that
they
were
zoned
mixed
used
to
begin
with
is
that
they
fell
within
the
depth
of
the
colvin
avenue
facing
properties.
K
According
to
the
property
owners,
the
properties
at
1057
and
1061
washington
avenue
have
been
used
as
residential
properties
with
occasional
commercial
occupations
conducted
therein.
For
example,
there
was
reference
to
a
real
estate
company
operating
out
of
one
of
the
properties
if
the
properties
were
rezoned
as
r2,
this
would
not
preclude
the
residence
thereof
from
conducting
such
a
home
occupation,
which
the
usdo
defines
as
a
business
profession,
occupational
trade
conducted
by
the
occupant
of
a
dwelling
unit
or
accessory
structure,
and
that
is
incidental
and
secondary
to
the
use
of
the
dwelling
unit.
K
The
requested
zoning
map
change
will
ensure
consistency
of
the
current
use.
Importantly,
the
properties
offer
affordable
housing
in
the
neighborhood
consistent
with
the
albany
2030
plan.
Formalizing,
the
classification
of
the
properties
as
r2
serves
the
goals
of
retaining
a
diversity
of
housing
options
and
maintaining
the
balance
between
rentals
and
owner
occupied
homes
and
the
overall
mixed
income
neighborhood
that
currently
exists
further,
as
became
apparent
during
the
course
of
the
planning
board's
consideration
of
the
stewards
application.
K
The
properties
at
1057
and
1061
washington
avenue
are
important
to
maintaining
the
character
of
the
surrounding
neighborhood
and
ensuring
a
land
use
pattern
that
creates
a
balance
of
residential
and
complementary
scaled
commercial
uses.
Based
on
the
foregoing,
we
asked
the
board.
We
asked
the
board
recommend
approval
of
the
proposed
change
to
the
zoning
map.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration
and
that
letter
again
is
signed
by
sarah
harrington
paul
lamar
mark
eamer,
janet
miller,
gregory
miller,
christopher
conte,
deb
conte
and
albert
wilson,
iv.
O
L
The
commercial
office
district
was
less
buried
in
the
types
of
commercial
uses
that
were
allowed.
I
can't
recall
each
of
them,
but
it
was
really
structured
around
office
as
the
principal
use
with
a
couple
other
uses,
maybe
contemplated
the
allowances
in
terms
of
building
height
and
other
measures
were,
in
some
cases,
more
intensive
than
the
current
munc
zoning
and
they're,
probably
in
some
cases
such
as
maybe
lot
coverage
less
intensive.
L
So
you
know
they're
quite
a
bit
different
in
terms
of
you
know,
I
think
the
neighborhood
center
is
actually
more
of
a
neighborhood
scale
district,
whereas
the
commercial
office
was
probably
somewhat
of
an
improper
classification,
although
I
would
note
that
all
of
commercial
coleman
avenue
was
owned
commercial
office
and
being
that
a
lot
of
uses
on
colvin
were
office
buildings,
that's
not
entirely
surprising.
L
I
think
what
someone
spoke
to
here
is
the
the
depths
of
the
properties
on
that
side
of
colvin
avenue.
Typically,
go
all
the
way
back
to
the
back
of
the
rosemont
properties,
whereas
the
property
on
the
corner
that
has
the
bank
in
it
or
had
the
bank
in
it
does
not
retain
the
same
depths
as
other
cold
and
available
lots
where
that
depth
would
typically
exist.
The
two
houses
on
washington
avenue
reside
so
when
the
lines
were
drawn,
they
were
drawn
as
a
straight
line
along
the
back
of
those
coven
afternoon.
O
Okay,
my
follow-up
question
is,
with
that
type
of
zoning
the
property
owner
wasn't
limited
to
having
to
live
in
the
property,
to
be
able
to
rent
it
out
for
measure
of
office,
space,
correct.
O
E
You
have
a
couple
of
questions
follow
through
brad.
E
For
you,
this
went
before
the
planning
board
for
recommendation.
What
was
the
result
of
that.
L
The
planning
board
issued
a
favorable
recommendation
with
the
advisory
note
that
the
common
council
also
look
at
and
consider
the
mixed-use
neighborhood
edge
zoning
district.
L
So
I
think
that's
a
an
endorsement
of
the
down
zoning
of
the
two
properties,
but
to
maybe
take
a
broader
look
at
whether
it
should
you
know,
be
in
that
lower
end,
that
sort
of
transitional
commercial
district
or
go
back
explicitly
to
what
the
buildings
are
being
used.
As
with
the
r2
zone,
okay,.
E
Thank
you.
Another
question
follow
up
on
the
key
bank
property.
I
don't
know
if
you
know,
and
I'm
just
going
to
ask
you,
do
you
know
what
the
acreage
is
there
for
that
building
in
the
parking
lot?
Is
it
an
acre,
a
half
acre
quarter
acre.
Do
you
have
any
idea.
L
Closer
to
an
acre,
you
know
I'd
say
probably
almost
a
half
of
an
acre.
E
Okay,
one
of
the
things
that
came
up
kathy-
I
don't
know
if
you
know
somebody
said
there-
was
a
50
signature
petition
put
in
for
people
against
the
ordinance.
I
don't
remember
seeing
that
was
that
distributed
to
the
committee
members
well,.
B
I
gary
demolitics
brought
that
up
to
me
over
the
weekend
and
ended
an
email
today
and
I
reached
out
to
the
planning
department
about
it
and
our
council
also,
and
they
reminded
me
that
those
petitions,
those
letters
were
from
the
earlier
stuart
shop
proposal.
B
Well,
it
no
it
doesn't
it.
I
mean,
I
think,
that
part
of
the
property
owner's
wishes
are
to
you
know,
be
able
to
have
a
project
like
stewardship,
and
these
letters
did
speak.
Favorably
of
the
stewardship.
O
K
B
Well,
there's
no
petition
that
I'm
aware
of
these
letters
did
pertaining
to
the
stewardship
legislation,
but
we
can
read
one
of
the
letters
because
they
it's
a
forum
letter
that
people
signed
just
because
it
would
be
helpful
to
council
members
to
be
aware
of
what
was
written
in
that.
B
That
was
for
the
stewardship.
I
think
there
was
some
confusion
there,
though,
because
I
think
mr
jamal,
which
thought
it
was,
would
apply
to
this
proposal.
B
I
Hello,
okay,
brad!
Maybe
you
can
answer
this.
I
drove
over
that
way,
probably
last
week
in
the
sunoco
station
across
the
street
up
against
that
fence,
they
have
a
sign
on
it,
welcome
pizza
place
and
deli.
Coming
soon.
Now,
what
judy
just
said?
A
few
people
said
that
all
the
way
down
washington
avenue
going
down
the
r
r1
or
whatever
it
is.
You
got
offices
interspersed
there,
but
why
would
you
allow
something
like
that
to
go
in
there?
I
Was
it
a
variance
or
is
that
zone
separate
right
now,
because
it
seems
like
in
the
same
neighborhood
you're,
letting
a
donut
place
going
her
a
pizza
place?
Yes,
michael.
C
My
understanding
is
that
pizza
place
is
not
going
into
that
house.
That
house
is
1045
washington.
The
pizza
place
is
going
into
the
old
market,
the
one
that
used
to
be
leon's
market.
C
As
a
market,
because
it
doesn't
have
its
own
parking
and
they
worked
out
some
kind
of
an
agreement-
or
you
know
with
the
gas
station
owner
to
allow
parking
for
that
pizza
market-
and
I
don't
know
what
the
status
of
that
is,
I
I
haven't
heard
whether
that
you
know
required
any
special
planning
board
approval
on
whether.
I
Or
not
does
that
stopped
by
buildings
because
of
not
being
zoned
correctly
or
just
because
they
they
found
a
better
spot
to
go?
That
was
one
concern
I
had
yeah.
I
C
I
C
It
was
a
vacant
building
and
then
he
I
believe
he
rents
it,
but
he
definitely
owns
it.
He
shouldn't
have
a
sign
on
it,
but
he
then
he
also
bought
leon's
market
because
it
didn't
have
any
commercial
use
because
it
had
no
parking,
but
he
is
the
owner
of
the
sunoco
has
parking.
So
if
he's
going
to
put
a
pizza
place
in
there,
assuming
he's
going
to
laugh.
C
I
The
other
question
I
have
maybe
for
brad
in
the
neighborhood's
concerns
the
property,
where
there's
a
law
firm
on
the
corner
of
lincoln
in
calvin.
Okay,
that's
a
very
big
parking
lot
there
very
big,
and
should
that
be
zoned,
something
different
right
now,
because
that's
next
to
that
would
be
backing
up
the
properties.
The
same
as
you're.
Talking
discussing
this
property.
C
Unlike
the
situation
with
these
two
houses
in
washington,
but,
as
I
remember
looking
at
the
map
and
brad
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong-
that
big
parking
lot
in
greenwich's
law
firm
is
totally
on
mixed
use.
Commercial.
N
C
At
the
committee
meeting
and
if
amy's
on
she
could
join
us
because
the
point
which
she
made,
I
remember
at
the
planning
board,
was.
Q
P
P
When
I
made
those
comments
you
know
I
I
did
a
little
bit
more
research
into
the
history
of
the
zoning.
You
know
for
that
that
corridor
and
looking
at
it
a
little
bit
more
and
I
do.
I
do
still
think
that
I
mean
most
of
those
uses
the
way
they
were
described.
P
They
would
qualify
as
home
occupations,
but
you
know
that
would
mean
that
they
would
have
to
be
owner
occupied
to
have
those,
but
certainly
still
you
know,
I
I
do
think
that
you
know
there
is
a
they're
they're,
still
keeping
their
character.
The
buildings
are
keeping
their
character
and
I
don't
think
there
was
ever
you
know
like
there.
P
There
weren't
commercial
buildings,
fully
commercial
buildings
on
those
sites,
so
I
would
continue
to
say
that,
but
you
know,
as
brad
said
before
it,
it
seems
like
they
were
rezoned
to
commercial,
I'm
not
exactly
sure
when,
but
sometime,
I
think
in
the
in
the
70s.
Maybe.
I
Another
informal
summoner
that
are
being
set.
I
have
a
piece
of
property
that
was
oh,
I
believe
it
was
well,
I'm
not
sure
exactly.
N
I
But
in
the
next
plan
last
usd
all
came
out,
it
was
suggested
by
planning
that
this
piece
of
property
was
owned.
R1
now
developers
are
coming
in
wanting
to
put
five
five-story
buildings
up
whenever
and
to
do
that
they
need
to
rezone.
So
you
know
we
just
do
something,
and
now
we
want
to
change
it
right
away
and
I
don't
like
the
precedence
that
satan.
B
Other
comments
by
council
members-
I
see
we
also
have
council
president
corey
ellis
council
member
awu
su
anani
here
as
well,
and
I
think
that's.
B
R
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
This
is
something
that
I've
been.
You
know
when
I
first
got
one
of
this
decision
and
this
request
and
also
this
piece
of
legislation.
R
I
was
doing
some
research
and
this
started
in
2000
last
year
in
november,
and
I
generally
have
some
concerns
just
on
the
face
of
it
that
this
site
is
potentially
was
thought
about,
as
it
relates
to
being
developed
to
put
a
stewards
there,
and
I
believe
that,
if
it
wasn't
for
the
stewards,
we
would
have
probably
left
it
as
what
it
was
currently
zoned,
as
and
I'm
thinking
about
the
precedence
that
we're
going
to
be
setting.
If
this
type
of
action
is
taken
right.
R
So
if
a
developer
is
thinking
about
utilizing
a
zone
or
a
property,
and
they
reach
out
to
that
individual
and
the
neighbors
or
the
representatives
reach
out
and
say
that
just
because
they
don't
want
a
specific
development
at
that
location,
should
they
have
the
ability
to
change
the
zoning
to
fit
what
they
want
in
that
community
as
one
of
the
youngest
council
members
and
individuals
in
my
generation,
we're
being
encouraged
to
buy
two
family
homes,
two
family
homes,
because
many
of
us
have
student
debt
that
are
probably
going
to
take
many
years
to
recover
and
to
see
that
if
I
was
to
purchase
a
two
family
property
and
if
an
individual
wanted
to
develop
on
it.
R
If
I
was
to
sell
it
now,
a
common
council,
member
and
neighbors
are
saying.
Well,
we
don't
want
to
see
that
type
of
development
there,
so
we're
going
to
change
it
from
r2
to
r1,
and
I
just
generally
have
some
concern
about
that.
So
I
will
say
with
all
that
information
and
hearing
more
people,
I
probably
will
be
voting
no
on
this
audience.
If
it
does
come
to
the
floor,
so
I
just
wanted
to
share
that.
Thank.
Q
Love
yes,
this
is
question
is
for
brad.
Q
L
Q
L
Planning
planning
is,
is
tasked
with
making
a
recommendation
to
the
council
and
the
recommendation.
They.
They
made
an
advisory
note
that,
in
addition
to
the
r2
zone,
that
mike
o'brien
is
proposing,
that
you'll
also
consider
the
mixed-use
neighborhood
edge
zone,
and
I
think
that
they
thought
that
was
a
balance
that
would,
to
some
degree
protect
or
buffer
the
residential
properties
on
rosemont
street,
but
still
potentially
facilitate
you
know:
stronger
reuse
potentials
for
those
properties
or
the
site
as
a
whole,
so
more
of
a
transition
zone.
L
You
know
they
didn't
explicitly
say
that
that
was
the
right
answer,
but
they
said
that.
That's
something
that
the
council
should
weigh
as
a
consideration
before
they
act.
C
Choice
if
I
could
just
follow
up
on
what
brad
said,
you
know
it's,
it's
the
council
that
has
the
authority
on
on
zoning,
and
that
was
reinforced
by
a
recent
court
decision
which
we
received.
Now,
of
course,
that
doesn't
mean
that
we
don't
you
know,
you
know,
go
to
the
planning
board
to
air
things
out
with
them.
We
do
and
that
and
that's
what
happened.
They
gave
the
opinion
that
it
was
it
was
it
was.
C
It
was
a
favorable
opinion,
provided
that
we
also
looked
to
see,
maybe
whether
the
mixers
neighborhood
edge
would
work,
but
I
think,
in
light
of
the
comments
that
have
been
made
in
reviewing
the
letter
from
the
neighbors
and
from
sarah
harrington,
there
are
a
lot
of
uses
and
brad
confirmed
this.
There
are
a
lot
of
uses
in
mixed-use
neighborhood
ads,
which
would
be
far
beyond
the
character
of
what
it
used
to
be
or
a
commercial
office,
and,
quite
frankly,
the
only
reason
it
got.
C
The
these
properties
got
included
into
the
new
misused.
Neighborhood
center
was
because
the
old
map,
whenever
it
was
created,
the
one
that
had
it
as
commercial
office,
had
it
had
the
property
back
and
right
up
to
right
up
to
rosemont
street,
whereas
the
other
side
of
the
street,
curiously,
the
commercial
property
zig
and
zag
around
the
existing
residential
properties.
So
that's
that's
why
it
went
to
the
planning
board
and
that's
why
they
looked
at
it,
and
but
that's
also
why
they
sent
it
back
to
us.
C
Well,
but
we
looked
at
their
character
and
the
point
is
that
there
have
been
small
commercial
businesses
allowed
nothing
like
a
nothing
like
a
super
stewards.
C
So
that's
that's,
and
quite
frankly,
when,
when
the
old
council
did
the
the
the
usdo,
we
put
a
provision
in
there
that
we
were
not
infallible,
there
might
be
mistakes,
and
I
think
that
this
is
one
of
the
mistakes
was
that
it
didn't
that,
unlike
the
other
side
of
the
street
which,
through
the
commercial
part
of
it
zigs
and
zagged
around
the
residential
properties,
this
side
didn't
and
there
was
no.
C
Q
C
On
from
rosemont,
yeah
and
and
the
bank,
the
bank
never
never
owned
these.
These
two
properties,
the
only
one
who
was
going
to
combine
the
ownership
and
blend
it
all
into
one
property,
was
what
didn't
happen
until
stewards
came.
C
A
Yeah,
it's
unlisted
action,
so
I
in
my
memo
that
I
sent
out
earlier
about
about
a
couple
hours
ago,
I
prepared
a
part
two
and
part
three
for
the
council,
the
committee
member
in
the
council's
review.
It's
a
unlisted
action
per
secret,
so
it
just
part
part
two
and
part
three
just
need
to
be
going
over.
I
made
a
recommendation
that
there
would
be
no
impact,
since
this
is
a
downsize
and
it's
strictly
staying
with
the
residential
aspect.
B
Okay,
thank
you,
and
also
also
in
your
memo.
You
talk
about
the
county
planning
process
can.
A
A
Yeah
so
under
general
municipal
law,
239
m,
if
the
property
that's
being
rezoned,
is
within
a
500
feet
of
there's
a
various
list,
but
this
one
under
this
ordinance
it's
within
500
feet
of
the
harriman
state
office
campus,
so
that
triggered
automatically
a
county
referral.
In
october
november
october,
I
sent
the
original
application
and
supplemented
in
november.
A
We
have
not
received
a
decision
from
them
and
under
general
municipal
law,
239
m
as
well,
once
you
submit
it
on
the
full
in
full,
you,
the
county,
has
30
days
to
respond,
or
they
can
request
a
30-day
extension
which
they
have
not.
I
followed
up
today
with
them
and
they
haven't
gotten
back
to
me.
So
we
do
not
have
to
wait
on
county
referral
decision
on
this.
B
So
I
think
this
is
for
me
this
is
a
difficult
proposal,
because
we
do
have
a
situation
where
the
property
owners
understood
this
to
be
a
you
know,
a
certain
zoning
and
now
we're
saying
that
it
should
be
something
else,
but
I
also
feel
that
what's
been
presented
here
tonight
and
in
the
letters
that
we
received
makes
a
pretty
good
case
for
this,
to
be
the
zoning
to
be
changed
back
to
residential.
B
And
the
fact
that,
with
the
current
zoning
you
you
could
not
have
does
not
permit
residential
and
you
would
still
be
able
to
have
home
occupations
similar
to
what
your,
what
you
find
along
washington
avenue
there.
If
it
was
changed
to
residential.
B
And
then
some
of
the
things
that
amy
was
speaking
of
that
buildings
would
be
able
to
keep
their
the
same
character
as
the
as
as
most
of
the
other
buildings
along
washington,
avenue
and
and
most
of
the
fact
that
most
of
the
uses
there
are
home
office.
B
O
Thank
you,
sir.
This
one
is
a
hard
one.
I
I
don't
really
like
the
idea
of
government
telling
anyone
what
to
do
with
properties
if
you
bought
it
in
a
certain
way.
I
think
the
government
should
do
no
harm
when
it
comes
to
how
you
can
use
your
private
property.
O
So
this
one's
tough,
because
in
one
in
one
time
you've
got
property
owners
that
purchase
properties
and
before
2017
they
can
use
the
properties
to
have
office
space
and
didn't
have
to
live
in
the
properties
they
they
kept
them
as
investment
properties,
and
they
used
them
to
the
limit
that
they
bought
them
wit
without
any
issues.
And
then,
on
the
other
hand,
you
have
individuals
that
bought
properties
being
abundant
to
properties
that
had
certain
limitations
and
could
not
exceed
what
those
limitations
were.
O
So
really
the
usdo
in
2017
has
given
us
another
doozy.
Thank
you
usdo,
because
we
we
now
have
to
to
debate
who
we
try
to
do
no
harm
to,
and
I've
spoken
to,
the
property
owners
I've
spoken
to
mike.
I
I
attended
the
upper
washington
neighborhood
association
last
meeting
last
week
because
I
wanted
to
hear
from
the
other
homeowners
the
homeowners
that
that
are
abutted
by
these
buildings.
I
spoke
to
amy
and
me.
O
I
think
I
would
like
for
us
to
see
something
that
allows
this
these
properties
to
go
back
to
their
pre-2017
status,
where
they
can
still
rent
their
office
space
like
they
used
to
without
having
to
live
in
the
building,
and
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
something
we
can
do.
But
I
I
don't.
O
I
want
to
be
fair
here
to
everybody
and
we
are
in
a,
I
feel
like
we're
in
a
situation
where
it's
difficult
to
be
fair
to
everybody
without
government
costing
somebody
harm
on
their
property
and
as
someone
that
knows
how
hard
it
is
to
invest
in
property
and
how
much
you
put
out
there
when
you
do
your
investment
in
property,
you
I
don't
want
to
cause
harm
to
either
of
these
two
and
the
best
way.
O
I
can
see
doing
that,
and
I
know
the
property
owners
probably
won't
agree
with
me
on
this,
or
I
know
somebody
won't
agree
with
me
in
this
is
to
try
to
bring
it
back
to
the
pre-2017
status
so
that
the
same
benefits
and
privileges
that
these
property
owners
had
before
they
when
they
bought
their
properties,
the
same
benefits
and
privileges
that
they
have
today,
and
I
guess
that's
really
more
brad
and
amy.
L
Don't
you
know,
I
don't
believe
it's
possible
because
you
know
the
performer's
districts
don't
exist
anymore.
You
know,
I
do
think.
The
next
year's
neighborhood
edge
zone
is
comparable
in
certain
ways
to
the
commercial
office
zone,
certain
of
a
lower
intensity
and
scale
in
terms
of
development
potential,
but
it
does
allow
for
some
commercial
uses,
like
offices
as
would
have
been
previously
allowed,
so
that
would
be
the
most
comparable
scenario
in
the
current
usdo
to
what
they
were
previously
zoned
before.
P
If
I
could
just
add
you
know,
I'm
I'm
not
the
planner
here,
so
I
defer
to
brad
on
those
types
of
things,
but
you
know
just
because
it
was
zoned.
Something
else
before
doesn't
mean
that
that
zoning
was,
you
know
the
most
appropriate,
and
it
certainly
doesn't
mean
that
the
zoning
should
be
changed
back
as
opposed
to
you
know,
figuring
out.
P
You
know
what
is
the
most
appropriate
zoning
for
it
right
now,
like
I
said,
I'm
I'm
not
the
planner,
so
I
won't
weigh
in
on
what
that
is
exactly,
but
you
know
there's
certainly
no
reason
that
we
we
have
to
go
back
to
something
just
because
you
know
it
used
to
be
there.
O
O
Well,
that's
not
the
same
value
that
I
had
before.
So
if
individuals
bought
this
these
properties
as
commercial
office
properties,
I
think
it's
our
responsibility
to
find
a
way
to
address
that
issue.
We
created
this
problem.
We
created
this
problem.
We
created
it
in
2017,
so
I
think
we
have
the
responsibility
to
be
creative
in
our
way
to
address
this
problem
in
whatever
way
we
need
to.
L
Councilman,
if
I
could
just
add
to
what
I
said
before,
I
think
you
know
the
owners
purchased
these
properties
as
two
family
properties.
You
know,
regardless
of
what
the
zoning
is.
They
have
a
right
in
relative
perpetuity
to
continue
using
them
as
two
family
properties.
L
There
was
a
window
where
they
had
a
greater
potential
due
to
the
overlaying
zoning
designation,
to
use
them
for
other
things
under
the
commercial
office
designation,
just
as
there's
a
window
now
for
them
to
use
them
for
other
things
under
the
mixed
use,
neighborhood
center,
it's
up
to
them
to
some
degree,
to
take
advantage
of
that
window
of
opportunity,
which
you
know
can
be
changed
as
a
result
of
the
legislative
proposal.
So
you
know
it's
not.
They
can
continue
to
use
them
as
they
were
used.
L
They
just
may
not
be
able
to
exercise
a
greater
potential
outside
of
a
certain
time
window.
So.
B
That's
you
mean
from
bread.
R
From
alfredo
I'm
just
concerned,
I'm
just
curious.
I
thought
you
just
wanted
to
get
a
limits
test
on
how
you
feel
about
how
certain
council
members
would
be
voting.
R
M
M
M
I
mean
I,
I
think
that
that's
a
factor
I
mean
we
can
talk
about.
Oh
there
might
be
more
value
in
having
it
be
zoned.
M
Versus
that
way,
but
if,
while
it
is
zoned
in
this
manner,
it
is
being
used
as
a
residential
property
which
would
be
utilized
on
would
be
allowed
under
r2.
I
don't
really
know
that.
There's
significant
adverse
consequences
to
the
owners
currently,
except
to
the
extent
that
they
would
look
to
potentially
sell
it
in
conjunction
with
a
development
for
two
carbon
avenue,
which
was
the
proposal
I
I
will
say
in
having
driven
by
that
particular
area.
Many
many
times.
M
And
you
know,
sometimes
I
think,
oh,
that's
not
necessarily
the
most
desirable
place
to
live.
Would
it
make
sense
to
convert
that
property
to
a
different
zoning
and
the
one
next
to
it,
to
a
different
zoning.
M
And
I
think
that
that
the
arguments
can
be
made
more
so
for
those
and
then
can
be
made
for
for
the
current
zoning
for
it,
these
two
particular
properties,
and
I
think
one
of
the
you
know
and
then
you
look
at
well
once
you
start
looking
at
rezoning
sections
of
a
street
to
a
different
use,
then
it
starts
to
change
the
character
of
the
street.
M
So
there's
obvious
reasons
why
that
was
not
done
with
the
property
next
to
the
gas
station
on,
on
the
other
side
of
carbon
avenue,
for
the
properties
that
face
washington
avenue
so
in
whole.
I
think
that
you
know
I
I
understand
the
difficulties
of
this.
M
It
seems
to
me
as
though
we
probably
did
make
a
mistake
with
the
current
zoning
on
it,
given
its
current
uses,
given
the
fact
that
it
abuts
m1
or
our
one
properties
in
general
in
the
city
when
you
look
at
zoning
through
throughout
the
city,
there's
not
a
lot
of
places
where
you
put
commercial
properties
right
up
against
our
potential
zoning
and
unless
it's
been
a
long-standing
use
like
that
in
in
most
cases,
abutting
the
rear
of
properties.
M
So
I
lean
in
the
direction
of
favoring,
supporting
this
particular
ordinance.
E
Yeah
you
know
I
listen
to
alfredo
and-
and
I
understand
the
difficulty,
but
one
thing
that
keeps
popping
in
my
head
is:
if
the
stewards
went
through
and
they
you
know
they
tore
down
the
bank,
they
tore
down
the
two
houses.
Now
you
have
a
24-hour
gas
station,
a
budding
people
who
bought
property
that
was
residential.
They
might
have
kids
there
and
stuff.
Like
that,
I
would
go
ballistic
I'll,
be
honest
with
you.
You
know
having
lights
on
cars
coming
in
horns
blowing
and
you
know
so.
E
You
know
everybody
wants
to
make
the
big
buck
and
I
think
that's
what
this
boils
down
to,
that
you
have
a
big
company
like
stewards.
Come
in,
you
know,
pay
your
top
dollar
for
your
property
and
you
know
to
me
it
just
doesn't
fit
into
the
neighborhood.
So
I
mean
it
like
alfredo
said
it.
This
is
a
a
tough
decision,
but
you
know
you
know
it
goes
back
to
2017
and
you
open
my
my
ward.
I
have
almost
same
thing.
E
B
Alfredo,
I
do
understand
your
interest
in
coming
up
with
a
compromise.
I
don't
see
that
that
is
possible
here.
I'm
going
to
put
a
motion
on
the
table
to
move
this
legislation
forward
with
a
positive
recommendation
and
okay
discussion.
B
Okay,
all
right
looks
like
who's
against
joyce.
All
right,
four
to
one
looks
like
the
legislation
goes
forward
with
a
positive
recommendation
to
the
full
council.
Thank
you
everyone.
I
appreciate
everyone's
time
tonight
a
motion
to
adjourn
motion
to
journey
second,
okay,
all
in
favor.
Thank
you.