Cohoes ZBA OKs Use and Area Variances for 250 Columbia Street, Imposes Lighting, Stormwater and Buffer Conditions

The Cohoes Zoning Board of Appeals voted 5-0 on Wednesday to grant the Cole Group a use variance and a related area variance for 250 Columbia Street, clearing the way for a 30-unit apartment complex behind two single-family houses planned on the former Felthousen Florist site.

The board approved the use-variance motion, moved by Member Justin Alesio and seconded by Member Mark Cotch, after presentations from the applicant team on site design, traffic, stormwater controls and an appraisal arguing that single-family redevelopment would be financially infeasible. The vote carried unanimously. The board also granted a 14-foot front-setback area variance for a single apartment building on Hinds Drive, conditioned so that the reduced setback applies only to the apartment complex as proposed and not to future subdivided single-family lots.

Why it mattered: The applicant revised an earlier, larger proposal after neighborhood feedback and county review, reducing the previous plan from 36 units in seven buildings to 30 apartments in six buildings and adding two single-family homes on Columbia Street to reflect the street’s residential character. Appraiser Jackie Conti told the board the current greenhouse structures on the 2.72-acre parcel are functionally obsolete and that, based on local market data and construction costs, "the multi-family proposal represents the only reasonable and feasible use for the property." She cited local average-sale figures and construction-cost comparisons in her analysis.

What the board required: The motion approved by the ZBA attached a set of conditions to the use-variance approval. Those conditions, which the board said should be enforced through Planning Board site-plan review and standard code‑enforcement processes, include: lighting improvements on Hinds Drive to address safety and visibility; sidewalk repairs and safety upgrades on Hinds Drive; planting of mature arborvitae (and fence buffers where appropriate) along neighboring properties; routine SWPPP inspections and a requirement that the project’s impervious-surface design not adversely affect the city stormwater system (with the applicant responsible for any necessary upgrades); review of driveway placements for the new single-family houses by the Planning Board/Traffic Commission; and formal easement documentation where needed among parcels the applicant controls.

Applicant case and technical review: Attorney Theresa Bakner and project civil engineer Frank Palumbo said the applicant conducted outreach after an earlier denial, met with neighbors and county planners, and prepared a stormwater narrative and a traffic evaluation. The traffic consultant reported the redevelopment would add about 15 peak trips—roughly one vehicle every four minutes—and said state DOT provided no substantive objections to the study. Palumbo described proposed retention basins and said a full SWPPP meeting NYSDEC standards will be prepared during site‑plan work.

Neighbors’ view: Several nearby homeowners said the applicant’s revisions had reduced their opposition. Richard Jackson of 248 Columbia Street told the ZBA the developers "have made the improvements that honestly I am ok to live next to this proposal" but asked that any approval be conditioned so the applicant is held to the plan’s setbacks, landscaping and maintenance commitments. Alice Benamati of 234 Columbia Street said the revised front houses and architectural changes "tell me that we have been heard" and that she has "a lot less objection than I used to."

Zoning analysis and precedent: Board discussion referenced the four standards for a use variance under General City Law Section 81 (reasonable return, uniqueness of hardship, no alteration of essential neighborhood character, and non-self-creation of hardship). Members differed in emphasis but concluded the evidence presented—especially the appraisal and the parcel’s size and prior nonconforming use—sufficiently supported the variance. The board and the applicant also reviewed county planning comments, which recommended addressing traffic, green space, pedestrian safety and stormwater before final approvals.

Area variance specifics: The ZBA granted a 16-foot relief (allowing a 14-foot setback from the Hinds Drive property line where 30 feet is required) for one apartment building so the project can be pulled away from Columbia Street and increase interior buffering. The board conditioned that relief to the specific building proposed and directed the Planning Board to document lease/property lines during site-plan review to prevent future unintended application of that reduced setback to other parcels.

What happens next: The approvals permit the applicant to proceed to site-plan review before the Planning Board, where detailed engineering (final SWPPP, stormwater controls, landscaping and lighting plans, driveway locations and easements) must be finalized and enforced. The ZBA noted enforcement routes include Planning Board site plan conditions and routine code‑enforcement procedures.

Vote tally and procedural notes: Use variance motion—moved by Member Justin Alesio, seconded by Member Mark Cotch; vote 5-0 (Chair Greg Mollnow, Vice Chair Anthony Kusaywa, Members Mark Cotch, Ron LaBarr and Justin Alesio voted yes; Alternate Jessica Duncan was non‑voting). Area variance motion—moved by Vice Chair Anthony Kusaywa, seconded by Member Ron LaBarr; vote 5-0.

Context: The site abuts existing apartment complexes (Columbia Gardens/Columbia Woods) and sits within an R‑1 residential zoning district whose stated intent is to encourage single-family neighborhoods. The applicant says the parcel’s former greenhouse structures are obsolete and that multi-family redevelopment better matches market demand in the immediate area.

The ZBA adjourned at 8:26 p.m.; minutes were submitted by Sharon Butler, Commissioner of Building & Planning.