Canton ZBA Hears Riverside Drive Gym Variances; Vote Postponed for Lack of Quorum

The Village of Canton Zoning Board of Appeals on Wednesday held a public hearing on variance requests from Ralph Isabella and Susan Sears for a proposed fitness center at 11 and 11½ Riverside Drive, but the board did not vote because it lacked the three-member quorum required to act.

Chair Conrad Stun opened the hearing, explained the standard sequence (applicant presentation, code officer review, public comment, then ZBA deliberation) and said one board member withdrew earlier in the week. He told those present that the board could hear testimony and discuss the applications but could not take a formal vote at this meeting. He also noted that the board’s alternate, Andy Whittier, may participate in discussion but cannot be seated to vote except in the narrow circumstance of a financial conflict as written in the village and New York State language governing alternates.

Applicants told the board they originally planned a modest rehabilitation but structural and geotechnical reviews showed the existing 1,400-square-foot building was structurally compromised; engineers recommended replacement. The design moves the new building away from the river toward the current parking area, but that layout would place roughly 113 square feet of the new footprint inside the waterfront overlay setback, creating a requested setback variance of about 20 feet from the 50-foot requirement.

Tim Nolan, the village code enforcement officer, reviewed dimensional standards and the parking calculation the applicants used: the district’s parking standard is one space per 300 square feet. With approximately 4,000 square feet of primary floor area and an optional roughly 1,000-square-foot mezzanine, the applicants estimate about 5,000 usable square feet, which yields a code requirement of about 17 parking spaces; their site plan fits roughly 11–12 on-site spaces, making a requested parking variance of about five spaces.

Chair Stun walked the ZBA through the four statutory area-variance tests the board must consider under New York law. On the first test (whether granting the variance would produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character), applicants argued replacing a deteriorated structure with a new, well-maintained fitness center would improve Riverside Drive. On the second test (whether the benefit could be achieved by other feasible means), board members cited geotechnical and pad-stability findings suggesting rebuilding on the original footprint may not be feasible without extensive foundation work. Regarding substantiality (the third test), members noted the request would reduce the required setback from 50 to about 30 feet and deferred formal judgment of “substantiality” until they reconvene to vote. For the fourth test (adverse physical or environmental impacts), the applicants pointed out the proposed layout would actually reduce impervious coverage compared with current site conditions.

The chair summarized two emailed public comments: Michael Iverson urged that the rear setback be responsive to floodplain concerns and warned that reduced on-site parking ‘‘needs to not result in street parking along Riverside Drive’’ that could conflict with bicycle traffic; a second commenter (identified as Joshua) wrote that a 24-hour gym would be a welcome amenity for Canton. Nearby business owner Dennis Walsh, who identified himself in the meeting, voiced concern that on-street overflow could encroach on adjacent private lots and suggested mitigation such as fencing or plantings to keep gym patrons from parking in neighbors’ spaces.

Board members discussed mitigation options tied to site-plan review and planning-board processes: a special-use permit handled by the planning board can authorize water-enhanced uses within the setback with conditions; planning staff will also review site-plan details (dumpster location, snow storage, drainage) and can require buffers or fences to prevent spillover parking. The ZBA noted staggered use patterns possible with a 24-hour facility and the existence of a municipal lot across the street that could reduce overflow risk, but members said those operational mitigations and planning-board conditions would be considered when the board reaches a final decision.

Because the ZBA did not have a voting quorum, the board closed the public hearing for the record, conducted discussion, and agreed to reconvene to decide the variances. Chair Stun said the public-hearing legal notice requirement has been satisfied and that the board would schedule a regular meeting (72-hour notice minimum for unchanged agendas) for a final vote; members set a tentative date of June 24 at 7 p.m. to complete deliberations and vote.

The ZBA asked planning staff two follow-up questions about (1) whether the proposed exterior form (mezzanine/glazing) constitutes a two-story building under village code and (2) whether the applicant’s outdoor seating/river-view elements qualify the project as a water-enhanced use subject to a planning-board special-use permit. Planning staff will be asked to respond before the next meeting. The hearing was adjourned.