7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, NY 13027
ZBA January minutes
The Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Van Buren, held at the Town Building, 7575 Van Buren Rd., was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
All present joined in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Roll Call: Robert Cleverly present
James Bowes present
Ronald Abold present
John Virginia, Chairman present
Laura McBurney, Vice-Chair present
Also Present: Vera Cavallaro, Secretary
Ted Spencer, Attorney
MINUTES
Motion
Mrs. McBurney moved to accept the December minutes as published, seconded by Mr. Abold. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously.
ACTION SPORTS – HEADRUSH
3417 Walters Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id # 055-04-02.1 PUD Zoning District
Mr. Jake Wright and Ms. Kristen Stephens were present to address the Board.
Mr. Virginia told Mr. Wright that the Board would set the public hearing tonight and that this application also has to go to County Planning for their comments.
Mrs. McBurney wanted to know what part in the process the applicant is currently at.
Mr. Virginia said that this is just informational tonight and the applicant has been to the Planning Board.
Mr. Wright said that the plan was at the last Planning Board meeting that hopefully they could get approvals for the restaurant and then they mention that the shared parking agreement would have to go to the ZBA which kind of threw himself and Mr. Clark off because the reason why they went with the PUD in the beginning is so they didn’t have to go to the ZBA and they discussed shared parking from a long time ago. So now they are here for a special permit for shared parking he thinks.
Mr. Virginia said now this is for the indoor recreational facility on lot 5 so let’s talk about that first. He asked the applicant if they want to park offsite on lot 6 and lot 1.
Ms. Stephens said that was correct and she pointed that out to the Board on the map that the applicant provided.
Mr. Virginia said to accomplish that they are going to need a special use permit.
Mr. Spencer asked what exactly was on each lot.
Mr. Virginia said that lot 5 is Action Sports expansion; he calls it the indoor recreation facility. He said that was the first building that Mr. Wright put up and now they are building the skate board park, indoor go-carts and indoor BMX.
Mr. Wright said just to clear this up the agreement that the lawyers are drafting is that people would not be able to park just on lot 6 and 1 but they could park in any parking spot on the lot.
Mr. Virginia said any parking spot on any lot.
Mr. Wright said yes.
Mr. Spencer said with the exception of one.
Mr. Wright said that would be the Motocross because he doesn’t have any interests in it.
Mr. Spencer asked which lot is that.
Mr. Wright said that would be lot 2 and it is kind of zoned out of the drawings.
Mr. Virginia said that he thinks there is a distance in which they could do it by zone and that is going to be 500ft.
Mr. Wright said 500ft from what.
Mr. Virginia said 500ft from any building that is the farthest distance they could park.
Mr. Spencer said ultimately this Board can redefine that in the process of creating this particular special use permit.
Mr. Virginia said that he wanted to make the applicant aware that was the current zoning law.
Mr. Wright said that was why they made the PUD from the beginning when they had the special meetings with the Planning Board the Planning Board said that they would define all of these things special for this lot and that is why they did the PUD so they would not have to go to the Zoning Board and they could stay within the Planning Board for these things.
Mr. Virginia asked if the lawyers are working on a parking agreement.
Mr. Wright said that the lawyers have been going back and forth on that.
Mr. Virginia told Mr. Wright to include that in their packet when they come back in next month.
Mr. Wright said that it should be done before that and from what he understands it is very minor things that they are working on.
Mr. Virginia said that he guesses this is going to change then; it will be any parking on any lots.
Mr. Spencer said just so he understands what is going on the other lots; lot number 5 is going to be the indoor facility, lot number two they don’t care about, lot number 3 is the Wingate, lot number 4 is a future 200 room hotel, lot number 6 is going to be the Quaker Steak and Lube and lot number 7 is the storm water management at the present time.
The Board discussed lot number 7 being a storm water management lot.
Mr. Abold asked about the parking on lot 6 and asked how many sites that encompasses is that the 152 and 32.
Mr. Wright said yes it is about 187.
Ms. Stephens said that even with the shared parking and the restaurant on lot 6 and overflowing into lot 1 there are still about 350 additional parking spots that they don’t necessarily need so there is room.
Mr. Bowes said that it would help a lot if they could somehow show numbers on the map and break down the number of spaces that are available in lot 6 for the restaurant.
Mr. Virginia said that they do show it.
Mr. Abold said that is 152 and then 32 for the restaurant is separate.
Mr. Bowes said that if they look at the table and it shows that a restaurant requires 138 spaces so that means that somewhere in there is extra spaces.
Mr. Wright said that they did put in extra spaces on this whole deal.
Mr. Bowes said and it is the same thing as lot 1.
Mr. Wright said that it is not like they are stretching it they are going to have more than enough space.
Mr. Bowes said that he is just saying that it is going to be easier to understand if they just lot 6 out of whatever that 143 of them are going to be for the restaurant and for lot 6 or for lot 5; break it down that way.
Mr. Wright said for example the restaurant down in Fairmount, Tully’s, has 40 spots or 50 spots.
Mr. Abold said yes but they are hoping to have events that carry a lot of people all at one time.
Mr. Wright said that he was just making a comparison that they have triple the spots of a normal restaurant and they are taking that into account.
Mr. Abold said that hopefully their place is like the Christmas rushes a few times a year so the forty spots don’t really mean anything to him, when they are in the busiest time of the year do they have enough parking spots for all these events to be full at once.
Mr. Abold said that was what he was trying to figure out is if they add up all four buildings how many spaces they would have to have for the four; well there is three and one proposed but he was going to use the fourth one and the restaurant, how many sites would they need for all of that combined. He asked if the applicant could give the Board a break down on that.
Mr. Wright said sure, the restaurant has 135.
Mr. Bowes said a revised shared parking summary because what they have on the map is confusing.
Mr. Wright said that the Action Sports and the restaurant share and then the Water park will have its own parking so really the only ones that are specifically sharing it at any given time would be lots 5 and 6.
Mr. Abold said that he understands that but when these are at full capacity do they have an overflow area.
Mr. Wright said yes.
Mr. Abold said because he is going to check all that and he wants to check it when they add to the water park because they probably will have to do that because that is not a really big water park right now and any success whatsoever they are probably going to use the future expansion and he wants to see how that checks out because if they had an emergency or something that is what he is more worried about. Having three events at once and then something happens and people are trying to get out.
Mr. Bowes said that the future expansion is reserved for another day but that is something to keep in mind.
Mr. Wright said that is why they did a PUD working with the Planning Board and he has gone through the special hearings to develop all of this; that was the whole point of the PUD set up so they wouldn’t have to go back and forth and confuse the situation between the two Boards.
Mr. Virginia asked if all of this was defined by the PUD.
Mr. Wright said yes.
Mr. Bowes said that he doesn’t have a problem with the way that they are going about it; the thing he sees in the code is that they are going to have parking for lot 5 on lot 6 and lot 1 and that parking that is designated for lot 5 has to be within 500ft of the building. That is something that is outlined in the code and that is something that they need to show spaces broken down between what lots they are serving.
Mr. Virginia said that they won’t have anything on lot 3 or 4 for the indoor recreation and if they are more than 500ft when they come back they should make sure because they are going to need a variance for that.
Mr. Wright said that he knows he has said this a few times but that is why they did the PUD.
Mr. Virginia asked why this is in front of the Board if it was done with the PUD.
Mr. Wright said that he honestly has no clue because they have buildings that are not on the setback and they would need a variance but they don’t need a variance because they have a PUD and they have shared parking but they don’t need a variance because of the PUD.
Mr. Virginia asked Mr. Spencer to explain that to him.
Mr. Spencer stated that if they know in their mind at the beginning what the final product is going to be then they go in and get their PUD approved with a list of things that are not going to apply and apparently when the Town Board got to that point and established the PUD things have not evolved to the point where they give them a list about the following sections of the code will not apply.
Mr. Virginia said for example parking.
Mr. Wright said that he remembers that they made a list but parking might not have been in it but he remembers that they made them make a list because the Planning Board said that they had to maintain the 50ft setback around the property and then they set their setbacks and did a whole list of uses and the whole deal.
Mr. Abold asked if the Board should review the PUD before next month’s meeting so if they don’t have to have the special use permit it would be better if they didn’t have to have it because it is in the PUD. He asked Mr. Spencer if he could review that for the Board and find out. If it is there why make the applicant jump through hoops that they don’t have to jump through.
Mr. Wright said that is what they don’t understand because from the beginning they said by creating the PUD they wouldn’t have to go to the ZBA.
Mr. Abold said that he understands that but if parking is not there then he supposes that the Board has to go ahead with this.
Mr. Wright said that they have been in front of the Planning Board about this restaurant for three or four months now and they expected to get approval and they just slammed it on Mr. Clark.
Mr. Virginia said that there are two applications which are the Headrush and the Quaker Steak and Lube but the Board is talking about the same thing so he is not going to reiterate this again.
Mr. Spencer asked if that included other lots.
Mr. Wright said that the legal document includes all of the other lots.
Mr. Virginia said that when it went to the Planning Board they broke out the restaurant and the indoor recreation facility and they said they wanted and he forgets the terminology but they said that they wanted agreements between those entities. That was the way it was going to go and it was going to be and now it was going to be everything so that is what the lawyers are coming up with and that is the first he has heard of that.
Mr. Wright asked Mr. Spencer if he saw the original agreement from the lawyers and by the way the Planning Board is the one who suggested the whole property.
Mr. Abold asked if an individual owner down the road and that is why the Board is doing this basically, if this individual buys this business is this going to be shared parking like a shopping mall.
Mr. Virginia said that is right.
Mr. Abold said they would not buy the land where the parking is.
Mr. Spencer said that they would own the land within their boundary that everyone is using for parking but they would also have the right to go onto their neighbors and park there.
Mr. Virginia said that it is just like the Rite-Aid.
Mr. Virginia said that if the Board gives them a special use permit that will be a condition of the sale.
Mr. Bowes said that it would be just like the mall; if they can’t park in front of the store that they want to go in then they park some where else it may not be convenient but that is just what they do.
Mr. Abold said that he is going to examine the number of parking compared to the number of businesses that they have in the future expansion because where are they going to put extra parking.
Mr. Wright said that they have at least 400 extra spots that aren’t even needed.
Mr. Abold said that if that is the way that it balances out that’s fine.
Mr. Wright said that the indoor water park, if the two hotels are full then the indoor water park is closed to the public essentially so all the parking for the hotels will hold all the parking for the park so all of that would be overflow.
Mr. Virginia said that if the Board reads the Planning Board minutes they discuss this in detail.
Mr. Abold said that they are also getting into the 500ft rule and asked if the Planning Board discussed that in detail.
Mr. Virginia said that he doesn’t think there is 500ft in this.
Mr. Abold said that he has a month to take a look.
Mr. Virginia said that if they want to change that it will be part of their special use and as far as the parking spaces he was at the Planning Board meeting and they went over this and over it so if the Board reads the minutes he thinks that they will find it in there.
Mr. Virginia said that the Board has to set the public hearing.
Mr. Wright asked what the public hearing was for and he still doesn’t know why he is here.
Mr. Virginia said for the special use permit for off site parking.
Mr. Wright said for shared parking from lot 5 and lot 6.
Mr. Wright said that he has a legal agreement for shared parking throughout the whole site.
Mr. Virginia asked Mr. Spencer what they do about that if the lawyers turn out the agreement for shared parking on the entire site, what happens then.
Mr. Spencer said the Board shouldn’t care.
Mr. Virginia said that the Board would have to give a special use permit for each one of the businesses and if they sell it, it is a legal thing that they have.
Mr. Wright said than it’s not really lot 5 and 6 the Board is going to give them special permits for lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Mr. Spencer said just to clarify the Board needs to know what they are looking for because the application says lot 6 wants to park on lot 5 and the second application says lot 5 wants to park on lot 6. So that is what the Board thinks they are asking for.
Mr. Bowes said that there is more than enough parking for just the restaurant.
Mr. Virginia said that the application would need to be amended if they’re not right.
Mr. Wright said that the reason why this is messed up is because it is not right, he shouldn’t even be here and if they amend this that opens up a whole new barrel of worms that the Board has to work on and that was the point of getting the PUD.
Mr. Spencer said that he wants to end up with a resolution of what they are looking for and when they came in they said that they wanted parking on lot 1 for lot 6 and lot 6 and 1 for lot 5 and that is what the Board is dealing with. Now if they are saying that this application should read a little different then they should tell the Board that so it can be corrected between now and the next meeting.
Mr. Wright said that he just wants to build the restaurant so whatever he has to do to get that restaurant lot so that he can get bull dozers in the ground is what he would like to do.
Mr. Virginia said that he doesn’t think they are going to have a problem with their off-site parking for the restaurant.
Mr. Wright said like Mr. Bowes stated the restaurant is all set essentially the only lot that needs shared parking would be 5 but then the Planning Board wants them also to have overspill on lot 1 from what he understands from the last meeting so they would like us to build a gravel parking lot there just in case in the future they have too many people it spills over on to that.
Ms. Stephens said then they would need to edit the one application that says lot 5 to share with lot 6 and also add lot 1.
Mrs. McBurney said that she can easily see a family coming in and staying at the Wingate and they play in the water park all day and then they go over to the Quaker Steak and Lube and the car is over at the Wingate the whole time and she sees this as one big thing. Who cares where they park.
Mr. Wright said that he has talked to the Planning Board about that for the last four month or five months.
Mr. Virginia said is that is what is required and the lawyers come in with an agreement that way and if that is the way that they want this special use to read so be it just let Mr. Spencer or Ms. Cavallaro know if they would like to just amend that.
Mr. Wright asked if this is a precedent and asked if the Board has done special use permits for PUD’s before because he thought the point of the PUD was that they don’t need a special use permit.
Mr. Spencer said that if they would have asked for reciprocal parking when they were in front of the Town Board than they would not be here.
Mr. Virginia told Mr. Wright that he needs to find that out.
Mr. Abold asked if the applicant revises their application it needs to be revised before it gets sent to County.
Mr. Spencer said that for that purpose it is not a big deal.
Mr. Abold said that he is just bringing it up so that there isn’t another problem later.
Mr. Wright said that County has seen it every month for the last six months.
Mr. Abold said that he would hate to say that it didn’t get revised in time and needs to go back.
Mr. Virginia said that there is a statement in the Planning Board minutes that says “Mr. Billings said that the way he would interpret this is two different lots with two different uses and the number of spaces would be added to and from his calculations it would need 273 spaces and what the applicant is proposing is 184 spaces so he suggests that they need to go to the ZBA for a variance, do they not need to go to the ZBA for a special permit for offsite parking anyway”.
Mr. Wright said that he has been here for three years.
Mr. Virginia said that the ZBA likes to see the applicant and that the applicant is a real nice guy.
Mr. Wright said that he has learned a lot over the past three years but this one baffles him.
Mr. Wright said that when they did their PUD the Board said that they had to do setbacks, parking and so on and that’s why they did the PUD to set all these things up.
Mr. Virginia said that he remembers that the applicant laid out a lot of parking because the original PUD they had the outdoor motocross.
Mr. Wright said yeah that was a while ago but he has been going to the monthly meetings and special committee meetings also and he has been cranking this out.
Mr. Virginia said just like Mr. Spencer said that if they asked for common parking throughout the whole thing.
Mr. Spencer said that if the Town approved common parking than this is not an issue at all so that is what has to be found out.
Mr. Virginia said that this may be a mute point.
Mr. Abold said that he would think that if it isn’t a mute point than it ought to be brought up in front because when they get a PUD it should not have to be coming back in here; some one screwed up.
Mr. Virginia said unless they change something.
Mr. Wright said that the committee said that he could go in either two directions; one direction where he doesn’t do the PUD and then go to the Zoning Board and Planning Board and back and forth and it takes a long time or work to get the PUD and stay with the Planning Board and crank this whole thing out.
Mr. Spencer said that the trick to doing the PUD is take the time to go through the entire zoning code and figure out every section that is going to mess them up so when they go in with their PUD application they can say these are the sections that are going to mess them up and these are the sections that they want the Town Board to say do not apply.
Mr. Virginia said such as parking, lighting, drainage, and water and everything else.
The Board had a discussion about what could be put in a PUD.
Mr. Abold said there are a lot of those like parking and lighting and things like that that are pretty common and he is surprised that it isn’t there and he thinks they may find it there when they go back through it.
Mr. Virginia said that they were talking about a lighting district too the other night.
Mr. Abold said hopefully they do.
Mr. Wright said that they are planning a whole lighting district and a whole signage plan for the entire site. It would be 15 different variances without the PUD.
Mr. Virginia said that the ZBA doesn’t like to see them going back and forth either.
Mr. Wright said that he is not complaining he is trying to understand the process.
Mr. Virginia told Mr. Wright to look at what the Town Board approved and let the Board know.
Mr. Spencer said that it is not uncommon when one goes in for a PUD because when they first start out they are thinking about uses and the nickel and dime stuff gets forgotten about so they are so excited about getting the uses that they forget about them.
Mr. Wright said that he thought with the PUD it was pretty much open and then they start refining it in another word someone doesn’t say they want these specific areas open he thought they would say that this specific area was open and then they would start locking other areas down. So someone would come in and say this is what they present for parking and they say no let’s rework this.
Mr. Abold said that he thinks that they could have done that if they would have put parking down.
Mr. Virginia said that the original PUD site plan that he seen had parking on it.
Mr. Abold said if they did then they are ok because he thinks they can revise it within the PUD.
Mr. Virginia set the public hearing for Headrush for February 21, 2007 at 7:35p.m.
The Board had a discussion about sending the application to the County.
Mr. Abold said that if the PUD happens to cover this they should find that out real quick before it gets sent to County.
Mr. Spencer said that it doesn’t make a difference because if the PUD covers it than it doesn’t matter what County says.
Mr. Wright said that he could go on the internet tonight and go through the minutes.
The Board and Mr. Wright had a discussion about the minutes.
ACTION SPORTS – QUAKER STEAK AND LUBE
3417 Walters Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id # 055-04-02.1 PUD Zoning District
Mr. Virginia set the public hearing for the Quaker Steak and Lube for February 21, 2007 at 7:40p.m.
MYLENE HAYES
6706 Pottery Rd. Warners, Tax Map Parcel ID# 055-08-9.0 R-40 Zoning District
Variance from Section 200-45
Ms. Mylene Hayes was present to address the Board.
Mr. Virginia informed Ms. Hayes that the application needed to be sent to the County so the Board will not be able to act on it this evening.
Mr. Virginia asked the applicant if she wanted to put an addition on the front of her house and at present it is 46.9ft off of the front.
Mr. Spencer asked what the required setback is.
Mr. Virginia said 50ft.
Mr. Spencer said that the applicant is already down to 46ft.
Mr. Virginia said that the one that is really going to be involved is the 46.9ft.because the addition starts at that corner and the applicant wants to bring the house out 8ft.so that will make it 38.9ft. The Board will have to give the applicant a 12ft variance. The other sides are ok.
Mr. Spencer asked if this was just a rectangular addition on the front of the house.
Ms. Hayes said pretty much, the one side will be a little more than half or at least two feet and they don’t have the contractors exact drawing yet but they will not be going out any more than this; actually the contractor will be taking a few feet away on one side.
Mr. Virginia said that it is probably on the side showing 10.32 but that is actually 11.32.
Mr. Virginia asked if the Board had any questions.
Mr. Abold asked what the dotted line is that is on the side.
Ms. Hayes said that it is an existing deck.
Mr. Abold said so it is already there.
Ms. Hayes said yes.
Mr. Virginia set the public hearing for Mylene Hayes for February 21, 2007 at 7:32p.m.
.
The Board had a discussion about setting the times for other public hearings for next month.
Mr. Virginia told the applicant that if anything changes with the builder going out towards the road to let the Board know as soon as possible.
Ms. Hayes said that nothing like that was going to change.
KASSIS SUPERIOR SIGNS (representing Meyer’s Campers)
7030 Interstate Island Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 055-08-9.0 IND-A Zoning District
Variance from Section 200-92(B) (1) & 200-93J (1)
Mr. Virginia opened the continuation of the public hearing for Kassis Signs.
Mr. Virginia said that unfortunately no one could be here tonight to represent Kassis Superior Signs but the attorney said that the Board could proceed without the applicant.
Mr. Virginia said that the Planning Board has given a positive recommendation.
Mr. Spencer said that this application started out some time ago and it was a complicated application asking for all different kinds of signs in all different locations all over the property and then it was referred to the Planning Board and things have been whittled away. The application is for a free standing sign on the south east corner of the property with a variance for height and size.
Mr. Abold said that he would like to just bring one thing up for the future; in a cell tower the Board looks for a fall zone and the Board gets these big signs and are not looking for it and he is just wondering why. There are parking spots within 15 or 20ft of a 40ft sign if it comes down and is that something the Board ought to be looking at.
Mr. Virginia said that the Board can make a recommendation that the Planning Board look at the site in reference to a fall area.
Mr. Abold said some times it doesn’t make a lot of sense because maybe in a shopping mall it would be hard to do something like that but is it something of a safety factor that the Board should look at it.
The Board had a discussion about fall zones for high signs.
Mr. Spencer said that it is an issue and it goes to the integrity of the sign and different structures are built differently and a less substantial the structure the more likely that it could tumble. It is a legitimate concern.
Mr. Abold said that the Board looks at it with cell phone towers and they are out in the country and they probably wouldn’t hit anyone if they did fall down.
Mr. Virginia said that if the Board puts it in their minutes that the Board would like the Planning Board to take a look at it fall zone for that particular sign.
Mr. Abold said that the Board might be getting into this more.
Mr. Virginia said that if it falls on their property that is one thing but if it falls on an adjacent property that’s another thing.
Mr. Abold said that he doesn’t want to see anyone get killed in a car.
Mr. Virginia said that he doesn’t know exactly where it is going to be located.
Mr. Abold said that they showed it on their little map that they gave the Board.
Mr. Bowes said personally he thinks that is a Planning Board issue.
Mr. Abold said that the Board always talks about it with cell towers and he considers these free standing signs towers and he thinks they are going to have more of an ice or wind problem than a cell tower would.
Mr. Virginia said that the sign is 70ft from the property line and it is more than 40ft from the right of way line so they have taken care of that fall area.
Mr. Abold said that he was looking at the parking area next to it. He just wanted to throw it out there for the future because the Board is going to start having to look at that because they are going to have more of these things standing up in the air and he wants to know if it is a legitimate concern or not.
Mr. Virginia said that the light posts running along the road could be in the same situation.
Mrs. McBurney said that it is quite a ways from the Thruway also.
Mrs. McBurney said that her pet peeve is the Thruway letter because it is unsigned and the Board has no idea what went along with the application.
Ms. Cavallaro said that the letter was looked into and that it was legitimate even though it is unsigned because the Thruway Authority does not sign their letters and that the Planning Board did go over that with the applicant.
Mr. Virginia said that if the Board goes through the Planning Board minutes they will see that the Planning Board went through that.
Mr. Virginia said seeing that the sign is down to 20’ x 10’ in size and the Planning Board has given a positive recommendation he doesn’t see a problem with it.
Mr. Abold asked where they will be able to see the sign from.
Mr. Virginia said east and west on the Thruway.
Mr. Abold asked if it would be seen coming from any other road.
Ms. Cavallaro said that the sign is mainly for the Thruway.
Mr. Abold said that he knows what the sign is for but it is a pretty big sign and he just wonders if it can be seen from anywhere else.
Mr. Virginia asked if there were any more comments on the sign.
Mr. Virginia proposed the following resolution. Resolution # 07-02
Meyers Properties by Kassis Superior Signs, its agent applies for an area variance from provisions of Sections 200-92(B)(1) of the Town of Van Buren Code related to tax map property no. 056-03-01.1, located at 7030 Interstate Island Road in conjunction with the development of the parcel. The property is located in an Industrial A zoning district.
Applicant has submitted the following information which the Board has reviewed: Application; agricultural data statement; statement of proposed signage and details for its free standing sign. Applicant has previously been granted variance related to the signs at this property by resolution dated March 18, 2002. Applicant has subsequently modified its site plan.
Applicant has requested a variance from the Code as follows:
(a) Section 200-93J (1) for sign size (20’x10’ 200 sq. ft.) and sign height (40 ft.)
Jim Williams of Kassis Superior Signs previously appeared to address the Board. There was no opposition to the application at the public hearing. Based on the submissions of Applicant and testimony presented at the public hearing, the Board resolves as follows:
1) This matter is unlisted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The Board appoints itself lead agency for the uncoordinated review of this matter. As the application relates to an area variance as to the location of a free standing sign, the Board finds that the proposal will have no potential environmental impact, particularly with respect to water, drainage, air quality, soils or other matters of environmental significance.
2) The variance for total sign size for its free standing of 200 square feet is granted as it will not produce an undesirable change in character of that neighborhood (zoned as Industrial A), is not substantial given the nature of the site and its size and it will not result in a adverse effect or impact of the physical environment or conditions in the neighborhood or district. Reference is hereby made to the attached Applicant’s “Site Plan” for the approved location and size of the free standing sign at the southeast corner of the property.
3) The height variance for a 40 foot free standing sign is granted based on considerations of the property location, elevations of improvements and surrounding properties and the effect on the conditions in the surrounding area.
4) The variance is granted subject to (1) Applicant obtaining final site approval by the Town’s Planning Board and specifically Planning Board approval of the signage size and location; and
(2) approval by the New York State Thruway Authority of the details and location of the signage. Any subsequent changes to the signs, including changes necessitated by change in ownership, would require submission to and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mrs. McBurney seconded the resolution. Resolution passed on a roll call vote that follows:
Roll Call Vote:
Aye Nay Other
Ronald Abold v
Robert Cleverly v
Laura McBurney v
James Bowes v
John Virginia v
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Abold made a motion to close the January Meeting, seconded by Mrs. McBurney; motion carried, unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Vera Cavallaro Zoning Secretary
| ||
