ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 21, 2004 Page 1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF ORCHARD PARK, Erie County, New York, minutes of the September 21, 2004 meeting held at the Basement Public Meeting Room, S4295 South Buffalo Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Remy Orffeo, Chairman
Donald Holmwood
Robert Lennartz
Joseph Liberti
Jo Ann Litwin
Mark Dietriek, Alternate
OTHERS PRESENT: David Holland, Building Inspector
J. Michael Wolf, Deputy Town Attorney
Rosemary Seivert, Zoning Board Secretary
The members recited the Pledge of Allegiance and the Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., stating that if anyone appearing before the Board was related through family, financial or business relationship with any member of the Board, it is incumbent upon him to make it known under State Law and the Town Code of Ethics.
The Chairman welcomed the new members, Mr. Joseph Liberti and Mr. Mark Dietriek to the Board.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 17, 2004 REGULAR MEETING:
A motion was made by Mr. Lennartz, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to accept the minutes of the August 17, 2004 meeting and the reading of these minutes is hereby dispensed with as each member of the Board has previously received copies thereof.
THE VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI ABSTAINED
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE RESOLUTION WAS DULY ADOPTED.
The Chairman stated that all persons making an appeal before this Board would be heard in accordance with the Town Laws of the State of New York, Article16, Sections 267, 279 and 280a, Subdivision 3, and the Town of Orchard Park Zoning Ordinance. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Board of Appeals may present to a court of record a petition, duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, specifying the grounds of the illegality. Such petition must be presented
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 21, 2004 Page 2
to the court within 30 days after filing of the decision in the office of the Town Clerk.
The Chairman stated that site inspections of all cases presented tonight were made by:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
DIETRIEK AYE
The Chairman told the Board that correspondences dated September 2, 2004 and September 8, 2004 had been received from residents residing on Alexander Way and Bussendorfer Road. The Chairman noted that the proposed project for the area known as the “Traditional Neighborhood” may not come before the Zoning Board of Appeals. These communications will be on file in the Zoning office for the members to review in the event a variance request is filed in the future.
NEW BUSINESS
1. ZBA File #35-04, Samuel Leone, Jr., 132 Minden Drive, Zoned R-3 (Sub Lot #163, Map Cover 2174; SBL#152.15-3-34). Requests an area variance to construct a 576 sq. ft. addition to an existing detached garage. Total building area of accessory structures with proposed addition is 1,372 sq. ft. Building area of dwelling is 1,130 sq. ft. Accessory area shall not dominate principal use area, Section 144-5B.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Samuel Leone, petitioner
Mr. Leone presented and explained his plan for an addition that he would like to construct to an existing detached garage. Mr. Leone told the members that he desires the additional space for his hobby of restoring and collecting classic cars.
The members’ questions established that the addition would not be used for business purposes and that the roofline would be kept in line with the existing garage. The petitioner explained that no drainage problems exist and that he would not require gutters. Mr. Leone told the members that the addition would have vinyl siding and be the same color as the existing wood garage. The total car capacity of the garage will be 3 cars.
The Chairman noted that the following neighbors signed a petition stating that they had no objection to the granting of the variance; Mr. & Mrs. Kevin Foley, 130 Minden Drive, Mr. & Mrs. Ward Fenton, 134 Minden Drive and Mr. & Mrs. James Eckert, 14 Ridgewood Drive.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of granting the variance.
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 21, 2004 Page 3
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if the Secretary had received any additional communications either for or against granting the variance.
The Secretary stated no communications have been received.
Mr. Lennartz made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to GRANT the area variance with a STIPULATION for the following reasons:
1. Strict application of the regulations will deprive the applicant of the full benefit of the economic use of the property.
2. The hardship is self-created but this does not preclude granting the variance.
3. The character of the neighborhood will not be altered.
This variance is granted with the following stipulation:
1. The garage is not be used for business purposes.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE MOTION IS HEREBY PASSED WITH A STIPULATION.
2. ZBA File #36-04, Vera P. Marek, 16 Saybrook Avenue, Zoned R-3 (Sub Lot 95, Map Cover 875; SBL#171.08-3-8). Requests an area variance to install a swimming pool with a 3 ft., 6 inch rear yard setback. No swimming pool shall be located closer than 10 ft. to a rear lot line, Section 144-30C(6)(c).
APPEARANCE: Mr. & Mrs. Peter Marek, petitioner
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 21, 2004 Page 4
The Mareks presented and explained their plans for a swimming pool to be located in their backyard. They told the members the cost would be the same no matter what size inground pool was installed. The Mareks would like to take advantage of a full size pool.
The members’ questions established that five (5) silver maple trees would be removed to avoid having the pool located in the shade. The Chairman noted that the Mareks had a practical difficulty, as they own a corner lot. “Dead space” exists where they would like to install the pool.
The Chairman noted that the neighbors residing at 20 & 22 Saybrook had submitted correspondences indicating that they have no objection to the granting of the variance.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of granting the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if the Secretary had received any additional communications either for or against granting the variance.
The Secretary stated no communications have been received.
Ms. Litwin made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Liberti, to GRANT the request for the area variance for the following reasons:
1. There will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and it will enhance the neighborhood.
2. The benefit cannot be sought in another way.
3. The request is not substantial.
4. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district.
5. The difficulty was not self created.
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 21, 2004 Page 5
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE MOTION IS HEREBY PASSED.
3. ZBA File #37-04, Mark Jacobs, 44 Timberlake Drive, Zoned R-1 (Part of Sub Lot 116 & Sub Lot 117, Map Cover 2266; SBL#173.20-2-19.1). Requests a use variance to install a basketball court. Permitted accessory uses in a R-1 Zone does not include basketball courts, Section 144-9A, Schedule of Use Controls.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Mark Jacobs, petitioner
Mr. Jacobs explained and presented his plans to construct a basketball court. Mr. Jacobs stated that it is his intention to have his five children and their playmates use the basketball court. Mr. Jacobs told the Board that he had started to clear the site and had removed debris accumulated from teenage gatherings. He further told the Board that the previous owner of the property had a smaller basketball court located on this property. However, the Town Highway Department assisted Mr. Jacobs in removing this while addressing a drainage pipe situation located on the property. Mr. Jacobs stated that he intends to re-landscape the area and make it more attractive.
Mr. Jacobs submitted photos showing his front driveway area. He explained that it is unsafe for his children to use as a play area because it is narrow and slopes. Mr. Jacobs stated that it is his desire to have his children play in their own backyard. He has no plans to illuminate the basketball court area and feels that he can control what goes on within his property. At dusk all game playing would cease.
Mr. Holmwood verified with Mr. Jacobs that the court will be 50’ x 40’, which is half the size of a regulation basketball court. The surface will be asphalt. Mr. Jacobs apologized to the Board, noting that he had already started to pave the court area and had not known that he needed a permit. Mr. Jacobs also told the Board that he had spoken to several of his neighbors and had been given verbal support for this project. Mr. Jacobs stated that if he had known earlier that there were neighbors opposed to the request, he would have hesitated with his plans because he felt he would have been placed in a weak position. Mr. Jacobs also stated that he chose not to have neighbor against neighbor so he did not obtain verification of approval from the neighbors that do support his request.
Mr. Dietriek discussed the fact that Mr. Jacob’s driveway is located on a hill. He asked Mr. Jacobs if he had given consideration to making improvements
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 21, 2004 Page 6
elsewhere on his property. Mr. Jacobs told the members that he did research having a driveway turn-around but found this to be too costly.
Ms. Litwin discussed the drainage of the property with Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Jacobs told the Board that the Town Highway Department had taken care of the drainage concerns at the site.
Mr. Lennartz told Mr. Jacobs that he could appreciate noise from children as he, personally, raised three of his own children in the residence across the street from Mr. Jacobs. However he told Mr. Jacobs that he feels the noise levels from a basketball court would be substantial to the adjoining residents. There is concern in the neighborhood of teenage children accumulating. He knows that Mr. Jacobs would do his best to control the situation, but the site would act as a gathering point where he believes it becomes the difference between having a residential area and a playground. Mr. Lennartz explained that this section of Timberlake has grown relatively quite and he believes Mr. Jacobs will be creating a disadvantage to the adjoining neighbors by having a 50’ x 40’ court constructed there. Mr. Lennartz agrees that Mr. Jacobs has a difficulty in placing a basketball hoop in the front of his driveway. However, this is the balance of the enjoyment of property versus creating a playground situation, which the neighborhood already has, located on Pawtucket. Mr. Jacobs told the Board that he chose to live here to be in a neighborhood, with children being able to visit his home.
Ms. Litwin discussed the ATVs that the neighbors have reported presently being used on the property. Mr. Jacobs noted that his son is riding a “little 50”. A discussion regarding noise projection concluded with Mrs. Litwin stating that she feels the “scooters” are not louder than the noise the proposed basketball court would create. She also agrees that the present driveway cannot be used safely as a play area.
Mr. Liberti established that Mr. Jacobs moved into this home on January 1, 2004.
The Chairman asked Mr. Jacobs if denial of the use variance would deprive him of all economic use of benefit from the property and Mr. Jacobs responded that it would not. The Chairman also asked that if the variance were granted it would alter the essential character of the neighborhood and Mr. Jacobs responded that he did not believe that it would. The Chairman then asked Mr. Jacobs if there is a hardship and it was determined that there is not.
Mr. Holmwood made a motion, seconded by Mr. Lennartz, that this is an Unlisted action and that a Negative Declaration under SEQR be made based on the submitted short EAF.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 21, 2004 Page 7
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS MADE UNDER SEQR.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of granting the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of the variance.
OPPONENT:
Mr. Falkner
48 Timberlake Drive
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Falkner told the members that he is against the variance request. The proposed basketball court would be located 30’ from his property line. Mr. Falkner also disputed Mr. Jacobs’ claim that teenagers have used the site in the past for congregating and leaving debris.
Mr. Carlyle Roberts
3 Fawn Terrace
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Roberts noted that he is located as a “back door neighbor” and expressed concerns for noise pollution. He believes the neighborhood has been maxed-out with what they can deal with. The proposed basketball court would be 100’ away from his property line. He told the members that if he had been contacted by the petitioner he would have inquired if a building permit had been obtained.
Mrs. Roberts
3 Fawn Terrace
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mrs. Roberts described to the members her commitment and devotion over the years to the children of the neighborhood. She stated that she couldn’t believe that the petitioner found debris as described on the site because she has always
picked up the lot. Mrs. Roberts feels that the neighborhood playground is for groups of children.
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 21, 2004 Page 8
The Chairman noted the following correspondences had been received opposing the granting of the variance; Mr. Paul Johnson, 50 Timberlake, Ms. Margaret Sullivan, 45 Timberlake, Mr. Arthur Marracino, 3 Swallow Lane, Mr. & Mrs. Roberts, 3 Fawn Terrace and Mr. & Mrs. Falkner, 48 Timberlake.
Mr. Holmwood stated that this is a difficult judgement to make. He believes the petitioner’s intentions as stated are laudable. However, he sympathizes with the majority, which has raised opposition to the request.
Mr. Liberti stated that he agrees with Mr. Holmwood. He views the proposed basketball court as a playground. He also noted that the numerous letters received against the request have affected his decision.
Ms. Litwin stated that she also agrees with the previous Board members’ comments. She noted that there is no representation in favor of the request. She believes that granting the variance would create a change to the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Lennartz stated that he agrees with Mr. Holmwood that this is very difficult decision. Mr. Lennartz believes that the place for the basketball court is the playground.
The Chairman referenced the 1939 court case of “Otto vs. Steinholder”. He noted that use variances are reviewed and granted, based on three thoughts in mind; loss of economic benefit from the property, altering of the essential character of the neighborhood and if the hardship is self-created. The Chairman told the petitioner that he had the opportunity to think ahead, before buying this home.
The Chairman made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to DENY the variance requested for the following reasons:
1. The applicant will not be deprived of the economic benefit of the property.
2. The hardship is not unique.
3. The granting of the variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
4. In researching “Otto vs. Steinholder” the Board does not have anything that fits into the reasons that we base our decision on.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 21, 2004 Page 9
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE MOTION TO DENY IS HEREBY PASSED.
4. ZBA File #38-04, Daniel & Rachel Wozniak, 3883 Sheldon Road, Zoned R-3 (Part of Farm Lot 40, Township 9, Range 7; SBL#160.12-3-10). Requests an area variance to construct an uncovered porch with a front setback of 22 ft. No setback, if already less than the minimum required shall be further reduced, Section 144-14. Note: ZBA granted a variance for existing addition on 12/17/02, File #52-02.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Daniel Wozniak, petitioner
Mr. Wozniak told the members that he had been granted a variance in 2002 to construct an addition. Shortly after the addition was constructed, it was found that a design error left no clearance for the entry door to be opened by an individual while standing in front of it on the steps. This error made entry into the home unsafe. Individuals would approach the door and would have to back down the steps to be able to fully extend the door to gain entry into the home. Mr. Wozniak would like to correct this problem and is asking that the Board grant a variance to construct an uncovered porch area that will enable his family to enter the home safely. The Chairman noted that letters of neighbor support were received from the following: Mr. & Mrs. Kline, 3885 Sheldon Road and Mr. & Mrs. Smith, 3881 Sheldon Road.
Mr. Lennartz established that the mistake had occurred with the contractor. Mr. Wozniak is confident that constructing the uncovered porch will solve this problem.
He also told the Board that he would like to be able to install railings.
Mr. Holmwood verified that the porch size would be 8 feet wide by 4 feet out from the addition.
Mr. Liberti verified that there would be no other purpose or use for the porch.
Mr. Dietriek discussed his concerns regarding an existing bend in the road and the fact that the porch will be located close to the street. He expressed concern that the proposed porch will affect visibility for motorists.
Ms. Litwin stated that Mr. Wozniak presently has a safety hazard. Something needs to be done now to correct this situation and railings must be installed.
The Chairman noted that the purpose of the Board is to grant relief from a hardship, which is what the Board did the first time for Mr. Wozniak. It is not the Board’s fault that a design error created a new hardship. However, the Chairman concurs that something must be done. Initially, he had concerns that the location of the proposed porch might interfere with traffic visibility. However, he believes that it will not be a problem.
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 21, 2004 Page 10
The members discussed locating the stairs on the side, leading to the driveway. They concluded that this would be more acceptable and aid with the concerns regarding traffic visibility.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of granting the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if the Secretary had received any additional communications either for or against granting the variance.
The Secretary stated no communications have been received.
The Chairman made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Lennartz, to GRANT the variance with a STIPULATION as follows:
1. There will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood.
2. The difficulty is self-created.
3. Turning the stairs will minimize the adverse effect of the safety concerns with the road.
This variance is granted with the following stipulation:
1. The stairs shall be angled facing the driveway and the porch should be parallel to Sheldon Road.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE MOTION IS HEREBY
GRANTED WITH A STIPULATION.
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 21, 2004 Page 11
5. ZBA File #39-04, Agnes C. Plunkett, 9 Chase Road, Zoned R-1 (Sub Lot #36, Map Cover 1895; SBL#174.17-1-2). Requests an area variance to construct a detached garage with a side setback of 7 ft. Required side yard for this R-1 Lot of record is 15 ft., Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.
APPEARANCE: Ms. Agnes Plunkett, petitioner
The Chairman noted that a letter dated September 17, 2004 from Mr. & Mrs. Richard Naylon of 7 Chase Road had been received stating that they had no objection to the granting of the variance.
Ms. Plunkett presented and explained her plans to the members. She told the Board that she would like to construct a detached garage beyond an existing turn around. The existing shrubs and trees will act as a natural buffer.
Mr. Lennartz confirmed that the existing trees and shrubs would aid in diminishing the view of the building from Chase Road. Mr. Lennartz stated that he found the set up very attractive. Ms. Plunkett agreed to replace trees or shrubs at this location if they were damaged and ceased to exist.
The Chairman noted that no actual diagram exists for the proposed building. Ms. Plunkett explained that she did not want to commit to having plans drawn until the variance request had been addressed. She did, however, submit a concept photo to the members for their review. The Chairman confirmed that locating the garage at the end of the driveway is not possible, as snow is located here during plowing through the winter season. Ms. Plunkett agreed to replace any trees or shrubs that ceased to exist in order to maintain the natural buffer. Replacement trees would be 4 to 6 feet high.
Mr. Holmwood established that the proposed building would be a 1-1/2-car garage, with a storage area and be approximately 20 feet in length.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of granting the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if the Secretary had received any additional communications either for or against granting the variance.
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 21, 2004 Page 12
The Secretary stated no communications have been received.
Mr. Lennartz made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to GRANT the area variance with STIPULATIONS for the following reasons:
1. There will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood.
2. The benefit sought cannot be achieved in another way.
3. The request is not substantial. The garage is not to exceed the size of a 1-1/2-car garage.
4. There will be no adverse effect on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood.
5. The difficulty was not self-created.
This variance is granted with the following stipulations:
1. The trees shall be maintained as a site barrier to hide the 1-1/2 car garage from Chase Road.
2. Any trees that cease to exist must be replaced with the same species and be 4 to 6 feet in height.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS HEREBY GRANTED WITH STIPULATIONS.
6. ZBA File #40-04, Robert J. Straccamore & “The Commons at Orchard Park, 3326 Southwestern Blvd.”, Zoned B-1 (Part of Farm Lot #18, Township 10, Range 7; SBL#152.16-6-1.2). Requests a variance to install a 25-ft. high monument sign with 237-sq. ft. of sign area per side. Maximum height of a monument sign is 5 ft.; maximum sign area per side is 30-sq. ft., Section 144-5B. Note: Existing sign structure is approx. 16 ft. wide by 6 ft.- 2 inches high.
APPEARANCE: Mr. James Manguso, Manguso Architects
Mr. Kenneth Cohen, BKV Realty
Mr. Jim Popiela, Ad Vision
The Chairman confirmed that a letter had been provided authorizing Mr.
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 21, 2004 Page 13
Manguso to represent the plaza owner.
Mr. Manguso explained and presented plans for the proposed sign, which has been based on the architectural style of the plaza. He told the members that the owner of the plaza desires to upgrade the plaza and have each tenant listed on the proposed sign. Mr. Cohen told the members that he believes the tenants located in the plaza need improved signage to remain competitive with the latest retail development in the area. The proposed sign will also help the public be aware that the tenants are located within the plaza. Presently, “Enterprise Car Rental” which is located on the west side of the building is not included on the existing sign. Mr. Cohen requests that the proposed sign be allowed so that all plaza tenants can be displayed. Mr. Manguso explained that the traffic conditions along Southwestern make signage paramount for businesses. He told the members that he feels signs play an intricate part in relation to sales.
The Chairman stated that in the past no applicant has shown definitive proof that signage affects business. The Chairman also established that signage for each tenant is displayed on the building. However, the petitioner noted that the tenants located on the side of the building were not easily seen. The Chairman discussed reducing the size of the proposed sign with the petitioners by eliminating “The Commons” from the sign. The petitioners explained that “The Commons” identification was necessary. For example, a tenant’s location is described as being located in “The Commons” plaza.
The members discussed the request for the proposed sign. Mr. Dietriek stated that this location is a busy intersection and that there may be a safety concern with people lost and looking for a particular tenant of the plaza. Ms. Litwin established that the proposed sign would not be illuminated and would be located where the current sign is. She stated that she feels that the intersection is busy and she noted her concerns regarding the sign blocking a motorist’s view of oncoming traffic. Mr. Manguso stated that the sign could be located elsewhere. The traffic pattern of the plaza was discussed and Mr. Manguso stated that they could install “enter” and “exit” signs to help eliminate confusion. Ms. Litwin discussed providing tenants located on the west side additional space on the proposed sign to help with their visibility problem.
Mr. Lennartz stated that the petitioner had not proven his point to him. No data was provided to prove that the proposed signage would make a difference. The applicant is asking for 500% more than what has been established by the Zoning Code. He noted that the proposed signage is something the retailer wants. Mr. Lennartz does not see how the larger sign will make a difference. The Orchard Park sign ordinance is clear as to what the Town Board desires for the Town. He feels that the Zoning Board of Appeals should not make this change when the Town Board has dictated smaller signage. The plaza has been
a long established destination, it is not new. There is no data or studies showing that a larger sign will make a difference. He believes if a larger sign is allowed it would create visual pollution.
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 21, 2004 Page 14
He will not support the request.
The Chairman confirmed with Building Inspector David Holland that a face sign on the front of a building shall not exceed 20% of the total surface of such face on one story.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of granting the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if the Secretary had received any additional communications either for or against granting the variance.
The Secretary stated no communications have been received.
Ms. Litwin made a motion, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, that this is an Unlisted action and that a Negative Declaration under SEQR be made based on the submitted short EAF.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS MADE UNDER SEQR.
The members’ discussion concluded that the sign size must be reduced. The Chairman told the petitioners that if the request is denied they would have to wait one year before re-applying. However, it was determined that the Board agrees that the Chairman and the Building Inspector may review a revised plan and if they both determine that it is substantially different than the plan that has been presented, the petitioner will be allowed to return this year.
Mr. Lennartz made a MOTION, seconded by Ms. Litwin, to DENY the variance
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 21, 2004 Page 15
request for the following reasons with STIPULATIONS:
1. There will be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood.
2. The benefit can be achieved in another way.
3. The request is substantial.
4. There will be an adverse effect on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood.
5. The difficulty was self-created.
This variance is denied with the following stipulations:
1. If the applicant submits another proposal for the Chairman and the Building Inspector to review, and they both deem it substantially changed, the applicant will not have to wait one year to re-apply for a variance request.
2. The applicant must provide documentation showing deprivation of economic benefit.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING: