GUILDERLAND – The zoning board of appeals, on Dec. 3, approved variances for a dental office at 1422 and 1424 Western Avenue despite protests from McKownville residents.

The applicants, Gaetano and Nichole Gialanella, plan to move their dentistry practice from 523 Western Avenue to the new space, by tearing down an existing house and renovating and expanding a dental office that has sat vacant for several years.

The two properties on Western Avenue are zoned for local business, which, according to zoning board Chairman Peter Barber, allows for a dental practice.

The Gialanellas need variances for parking, for suspending a sidewalk requirement, and for renovating a portion of the existing building that is within the 40-foot setback required by the zoning code.

Neighbors of the properties said at the public hearing that the property is inappropriately zoned and that a medical building would detract from the residential feel of the area.

After meeting with the zoning board previously, and meeting with the McKownville Improvement Association, headed by Don Reeb, in November, Mr. Gialanella presented a revised rendering of the building on Dec. 3.

He said he took the neighbors’ comments into consideration and changed the plans in an attempt to make the building look more residential. He described a ranch-style house with large, shuttered windows and flower boxes, an entryway with an iron railing, and extensive landscaping.

Mr. Gialanella said, at the recommendation of the residents, he had removed dormers and a covered entryway from the plans, lowered the pitch of the roof, changed the color of the roof and siding, and agreed to extend a wooden fence on the side of the property.

Reeb spoke at the hearing and said, “As a commercial property, it doesn’t make sense.

“The zoning is the zoning,” he continued. “You’re not supposed to be in here, asking for variances for a building bigger than the lot can handle.”

Reeb said he feared a pattern in which a commercial building would continue to grow and expand over the years.

Reeb said that, in 2006, the McKownville Improvement Association had recommended that the properties be rezoned as “business non-retail professional,” to which Barber responded that a dental office would still be an allowed use.

Gavin Hogan, who lives directly behind the two properties, agreed with Reeb.

“These are two small properties that are hard to imagine as appropriate for local business,” said Hogan. “Now they are asking for one large building on two lots, and that building could have any number of uses down the road.”

Jim White, another neighbor, said he, too, felt the project would be an overdevelopment of a small property.

“I think a number of people in the town have not understood what we’re trying to do in McKownville,” said White. “We are trying to turn it into a good, walkable neighborhood.”

“Just because someone has the right to do something doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do,” said Judy White.

Barber, at the close of the public hearing, said, again, that it was not a question of whether a dental office should be an allowed use on the properties.

“It is not within our ability to say it is inappropriate,” he said. “It is not what the zoning board has the power to do.”

He went on to say that, under the umbrella of “local business,” any number of uses would be allowed, including restaurants, banks with drive-through windows, and convenience stores, some of which could remain open for 24 hours.

“In stark contrast,” said Barber, “a dental office is a low-intensity use operating Monday through Friday during daylight hours.”

He read a memorandum from the town planner, Jan Weston, who said there were benefits to the project, because it would renovate and reuse a building that has been vacant for years, consolidate three driveways, and remove traffic from one of the side streets, Westlyn Court.

The zoning board, said Barber, would recommend approval of the project, with the conditions that the state’s Department of Transportation would install sidewalks on that portion of Western Avenue; the renovation of the existing building would not encroach on the required 40-foot setback; and there would be no banked parking in the front of the building, with a limit of 25 parking spaces total.

“Equating a dental practice to a commercial strip is simply not accurate,” said Barber. “I think the applicant has done everything possible to ensure a residential look.”