Town of New Scotland

Document Sample
Town of New Scotland Powered By Docstoc
					                               Town of New Scotland
                                  Zoning Board
                                September 22, 2009
Present: Chairman William Hennessy, Adam Greenberg, Robert Parmenter, Lance Moore, Wayne

Also Present:   Paul Cantlin, Town Inspector, Keith Menia, Town Engineer, Louis Neri, Town

Public Hearing 7:00 P.M.:

Area Variance Application #424: Application submitted by Howard Hoose for relief
from the front yard set back of Article II, Section 190-12 of the Zoning Law. The parcel
is located within the “RA” District at 328 Onesquethaw Creek Road and is identified as
New Scotland Tax parcel i.d. # 119.-1-4.1. Section 190-12 of the Zoning Law requires a
minimum front setback of 40 feet within the “RA” District. This request is for 17.5 feet
of relief to allow for a new barn to be erected with a front yard setback of 22.5 feet.

Mr. Hoose explained that he would like to build a new barn that would replace the barn
that had collapsed. I would like to add a well house to the existing well. It is only like
10-feet off the road. Also, on the other side of the road I have a chicken house that I
recently built and I would like to keep it close to the house so we can take care of the
chickens in the wintertime. That is not too far up the road either. The problems is there
are wetlands in the back and a hill on the other side. We are very limited on area. The
road goes through our property. It divides up the farm. The chicken house is 8x8 and the
well house will be 6x6. It is a town road.

Mr. Menia: The things you are talking about tonight are not on your map here tonight?

Mr. Hoose: They are on the property, but they are not shown on the map. The well is on
my property.

Mr. Greenberg: We can’t give a variance without measurements anyways.

Mr. Hoose: I would say the well house is from the center of the road 35-feet.

Mr. Cantlin: We need you to do some measuring.

Mr. Greenberg: In terms of the variance you applied for the proposed barn is no closer to
the road than the already existing barn is that correct?

Mr. Hoose: Correct.

Mr. Menia: What is the speed of the road?
                                                                          ZBA Min. 9.22.2009

Mr. Hoose: 40 mph.

Mr. Menia: Does some need to check to see if there is adequate sight distance, because
we are on the part of the road. These are the kind of questions that are you are on the
inside of a curve and this is where more accurate mapping would be helpful. The closest
corner of the proposed barn is going to be how far off the edge of the road?

Mr. Cantlin: 22 ½ feet from 25-feet back from the center of the road. 47.5 from the
middle of the road.

Mr. Menia: I guess what I’m getting at and I don’t know if it is a problem or not is that
by having a structure on the inside of the curve where you are proposing to have the barn
it could be causing a sight triangle problem.

Mr. Hoose: There was an existing barn there before.

Mr. Menia: Correct.

Mr. Hoose: It is in the same position as that existing barn was before.

Mr. Menia: I’m looking at this and it says the existing barn located here and I see a
proposed barn located here. The location of the existing barn is not on the same part of
the curve as the proposed barn.

Mr. Hoose: This picture is not accurate.

Mr. Menia: The proposed barn is located to the east of where the existing barn was
shown and that is on the inside of a curve, which could cause a sight triangle problem.
For eastbound traffic the proposed barn could be within a sight triangle. If you are going
to have a proposed barn, which you would probably have a curb cut for a driveway or a
road access that should be also taken into account. You need to get better mapping.

Mr. Greenberg: What did Planning have to say?

Mr. Menia: I’m just looking at this right now. I was at the PB meeting, I just didn’t
realize that this is an issue. I think Darrell is going to want to take a look.

Mr. Hennessy: Are you okay with giving us a little bit more mapping information and

Mr. Hoose: How about pictures?

Mr. Hennessy: Well, yeah, that would be helpful, but we can go out and look at it

                                                                                   ZBA Min. 9.22.2009

Mr. Menia: Probably the best thing to do is do a field measurement. What we would do
is we would take the speed of the road, the required stopping sight distance, and we
would actually go out there and we would verify that. You know show us exactly where
the corners are going to be and we will imagine that the building is there and see if there
is adequate sight distance.

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Hoose should be providing us with a map. Darrell can go out there
and look at this with Keith.

Mr. Menia: On jobs like this where it is such a small effort its something that we can put
under the zoning general, we are well under that for the year. We’ve done this with PB
applications where it is something very minor like that.

Mr. Hennessy: That’s fine with me.

Mr. Neri: At the same time you are the Board that is approving it and if there is a
problem later on your going to have it come back on you. The existing barn was not
approved by you or anybody. If you are going to go out and approve I think Keith is
cautioning you to be air on the side of caution. So it is a good idea.

Mr. Menia: Mr. Hoose give Darrell a call and figure out a time we can do that.

Mr. Hennessy: We should get that information. I’ll make a motion to adjourn this until
next month.

Mr. Cantlin: In the mean time take better measurements for your chicken house and well

Mr. Menia: We’ll look at all those things while we are out there.

Mr. Greenberg: To expedite things maybe we could send this along to Planning, if he
could get the measurements in on time. That way we could deal with all of it next month.

Mr. Hoose: I’ll contact Darrell and get things to you.

Mr. Neri: The Planning Board is the 6 th of October.

Variance Application #423: Application submitted by Jennifer B. Howard on behalf of the
Stewarts Shops Corp. to allow for “Sunoco” gas signage to be placed on the front face of two gas
pump canopies. The site of issue is a Stewarts Shop located at 1936 New Scotland Road,
identified as New Scotland tax parcel i.d. #84.-2-20. The current signage on the site consists of
one freestanding sign of 24 sq. ft. and one building mounted sign of 21sq. ft. totaling 45 sq. ft. in
total area. The proposed additional signage will cover an area of 135 square feet for each canopy,
totaling 270 sq. ft. in are. This request is to allow for two additional detached signs and for an
additional 240 sq. ft. of signage over the allowed 75 sq. ft. of total signage area.

                                                                                    ZBA Min. 9.22.2009

Mr. Kiesow explained that they modified the options that they presented to the Board last month.
There was concern over the blue backer and the two colors. I talked to Sunoco and they provided
me with some information on other signs that they have done in their footprint. The two that I
filed there look identical. However, they are different. The one in particular is a can sign or a
sign which would be mounted to a flush fascia of a canopy protrude out. Each of those letters is
individual versus one big block sign. The other proposal there is a flush mounted sign, which
would be imbedded back into the canopy. The only difference is the same size of the letters and
the same size coloring etc. but the type of sign it is, is different.

Mr. Greenberg: Why would be want a block sign on this I’m curious as to why that came up?

Mr. Kiesow: It was the two options that Sunoco provided to me. Aesthetically I personally like
the look of that sign better than the flush mounted sign, but the flat lens again were dull looking
in my personal opinion. I like the can sign myself. I might have a picture.

Mr. Hennessy: I don’t recall these ever being proposed to be internally luminated?

Mr. Kiesow: They are not, I mean the two proposal we presented we didn’t like, so we came
back with this and we are significantly changing the square footage of what we are looking for
from 240 down to 34 now. The footprint is definitely shorting up and those are internally
luminated signs that we are suggesting.

Mr. Hennessy: I never interpreted that the internal lumination was part of this. Do you recall that
in the proposal? I stand corrected there plan says it but in the presentation I don’t recall that

Mr. Greenberg: It is only internal on the block right?

Mr. Kiesow: Correct. The original presentation was just a flat decal. I was basically looking to
address the concerns here was about that blue backer last time and also the amount of variance
asked for. This obviously significantly reduces the amount of variance we are asking for. I think
we have addressed that in these two options. I am looking to see which you folks prefer. I would
like to go with the can sign. I am looking to you for recommendations.

Mr. Hennessy: I will open this up to the public.

Ms. Abrams: These pictures are from the Stewarts in Delmar. It is smaller and has more
vegetation in the front. About the extra signage on the canopy still is very easy to see what it is. I
think the signage on the canopy is unnecessary. That is the first point I wanted to make. The
second point that I wanted to make, well the canopy is much larger here, because we have two
separate gas pump stations. This one is much more open and much more visible from the road. I
think that what Sunoco itself wants is irrelevant. If Delmar has guidelines and that’s what the
Town of Bethlehem insists on then as you can see by example that they have to follow what the
residence want in that town. I would like to remind you the reason that this has come up is
because of the promotion with Price Chopper. I assume it is a temporary promotion. It is not a
permanent promotion and therefore I don’t think that we need to have a sign there. I don’t think
we need permanent signage like that just for a temporary promotion. I don’t have a brand loyalty
to certain gas. I think most people look for price. I don’t think people are going to look for
Sunoco gas in particular. That is another reason why I don’t think that canopy sign is necessary.
Last thing that I wanted to say is that I understand that the PB is coming up with guidelines for
the commercial district. I think we should give the PB a chance to come up with new guidelines

                                                                                  ZBA Min. 9.22.2009

and have a public hearing for residence to have input into that before you go ahead with the
canopy sign. That is all I really wanted to say. Thank you!

Mr. Hennessy closed the public hearing.

Mr. Greenberg: In terms of the program, we talked about this and I don’t think you were here
Edie at the first meeting, but it has been going on for a long time.

Mr. Kiesow: It has been going on for three years. They have signed up for another three years in
those other areas. It is new to the Capital District. There intent is to continue and be successful.

Mr. Greenberg: Lets say the promotion did end is there a way to take the sign down, because in
terms of what you presented and what I think about the situation, you wanted to advertise Sunoco
because of the promotion.

Mr. Kiesow: Well, certainly being branded Sunoco you want to present the message that you are
Sunoco with or without the promotion. I would be standing here and asking for the same
variance. Certainly it has a greater need currently because of the success with the promotion.
Many of you have talked about this is where you redeem it and this is a Sunoco. We branded this
station Sunoco in mid-June when this all started.

Mr. Hennessy:   The Zoning Board shall grant the minimum variance necessary and
adequate at the same time preserving and protecting the character of the district,
neighbor, and health safety and welfare of the community. In making such a
determination the ZBA shall also consider the following:

Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
determent to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance.

Mr. Hennessy: That one is up to discussion by each member. The applicant has significantly
diminished their application from whole canopy just to the letters. There are residential
properties on the north side but they are buffered by vegetation.

Whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the
applicant to pursue other than an area variance.

Mr. Greenberg: I think to advertise Sunoco gas it can’t there has to be some kind of signage.

Whether the requested for an area variance is substantial?

Mr. Hennessy: It is less substantial than it’s original application, but it is still substantial
percentage wise based on the signage allowed in the district.

Whether the proposed variance will have adverse affect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the district or neighborhood?

Mr. LaChapelle: I don’t believe it will at all.

Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created which consideration shall be relevant to the
decision of the ZBA, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.

                                                                                   ZBA Min. 9.22.2009

Mr. Hennessy: Yes, I believe this is self-created.

Mr. Greenberg: I don’t think it is. Given that they had switched to Sunoco gas in June it is a new
characteristic that they want to advertise. I guess the switching was self-created, but the fact that
there is a new product that they are marketing. Just to go back to the undesireable change to the
neighborhood, I basically agree with you, I know that originally when Stewarts came to the PB
worked real hard to have this blend in with the character of the neighborhood and one of the
things they talked about was signage on the canopy. I think this changes that.

Mr. Hennessy made a motion to approve variance application #423 with the following condition
that the flush mount sign, but not internally luminated sign be accepted. It is less than 17-square
feet as proposed. The applicant proposed that the Sunoco lettering to be 11-foot 4-inches long and
1-foot 6-inches high. I would like to preclude additional temporary signs along the road. That
should include the signs that are mounted on the light poles, which is says the program. I would
like to have a discussion about that.

Mr. Moore: I agree. It precludes all other forms of advertising.

Mr. Greenberg: How do you feel about that?

Mr. Kiesow: If you are discussing the signs that are right now on the light poles advertising the
fuel program my intent was to certainly never have those up. The only reason they are up
because we are not able to advertise the Sunoco gas. My intent was to take those down once we
got this all squared away. It doesn’t look good.

Mr. Hennessy: That sounds good.

Mr. LaChapelle seconded the motion. All in favor motion so carried.

Mr. Cantlin: Bill when you said no other signs did you mean the sandwich board signs? That is
what we are saying right?

Mr. Hennessy: Right.

Mr. Neri: What are you going to do with all the other temporary signs that line that area?

Mr. Cantlin: The signs on the poles would have to come down because they can’t be there.

Mr. Neri: I mean other businesses like Stonewell, the Town Hall, the signs in the commercial

Mr. Cantlin: What I’m saying is we do this right in front of our own building. We are going to
tell these people and other people that they shouldn’t do it. People want a rural town, rural towns
are sandwich board signs and little signs that come in and out all the time. You can put the
condition on it, I’m not saying you can’t, but I think we ought to think about it. I want to know
how to write the variance. Olsen agreed that he would not have any additional signs. That was
part of the condition.

Mr. LaChapelle: Correct me if I’m wrong, but Stewarts can have other signs just not signs
advertising the Sunoco.

                                                                                 ZBA Min. 9.22.2009

Mr. Cantlin: No that’s not how I take it. You can’t put out ice cream cones 2 for a nickel. You
can’t do anything.

Mr. LaChapelle: I disagree with that.

Mr. Cantlin: This is what I heard here. Maybe I didn’t hear correctly.

Mr. Hennessy: I was just trying to be consistent with what we have done in the zone.

Mr. Cantlin: I just want to know how to write the variance.

Mr. Greenberg: Write it up like how Olsen’s was written up.

Mr. Hennessy: I was talking about the temporary signs and the sandwich board signs as well as
the signs on the light posts. No additional signage period as it relates to Sunoco or gas.

Mr. Cantlin: As it relates to anything without coming back.

Mr. LaChapelle: I think that is too restrictive. I don’t know if I can pull my vote or whatever. I
did not understand it to be that. I thought it was strictly for Sunoco. I think it is extremely
restrictive to a business. How can I change my vote?

Mr. Hennessy: You are both on record as disagreeing with it as far as the minutes. I totally
acknowledge that they disagree with it. I’m not dismissing that.

Mr. Neri: It is more for clarification as to what kind of language you want for the variance. You
can re-vote on the condition. There was a misunderstanding as to what the condition was, so if
you want to continue to talk about that and amend your variance to better define your condition
so be it.

Mr. Parmenter. My vote was based on the sign on the canopy and removing the ones from the
poles. Not any other signs.

Mr.LaChapelle: Myself as well.

Mr. Cantlin: I’m talking more about the sandwich board signs or the signs that are larger that are
put out by the street that do attract a passer by. The ones at your gas pumps you can’t read from
the road.

Mr. Greenberg: You don’t mind not having things by the road.

Mr. Kiesow: That is not uncommon to restrict that.

Mr. Neri: Can we define it as the kind of sign, and then the describe a sandwich sign.

Mr. Hennessy: I’m talking about sandwich board signs along the road or signs along the road
within the right of way. I would not let them closer than the monument sign. I think pretty much
the green space out front.

                                                                               ZBA Min. 9.22.2009

Mr. Kiesow: I’m fine with that. I just want to clarify that the Board approved the flush mounted
sign as drawn just not illuminated. There is a sign on each canopy.

Mr. Hennessy: Correct.

Mr. Neri: With the condition that there will be no a-frame, sandwich board sign in the grassy
knoll area.

Regular Meeting:

Discussion/Action minutes of August 25, 2009: Mr. Greenberg made a motion to accept the
August 25, 2009 minutes and Mr. Moore seconded the motion. All in favor motion so carried.

Discussion/Action Area Variance Application #423:

Extension request for Temporary Use Permit #404: Request of Marc V. Tryon for a one year
extension of Temporary Use Permit #404 to allow for the continued temporary placement of a
barn to remain on a site awaiting the construction of a dwelling. Temporary uses are granted for
a period of twelve months and are renewable once for a period of not more than twelve months.
The original permit for the barn was approved on September 24, 2008.

Mr. Hennessy made a motion to extend his Temporary Use Permit #404 for 12 months from the
end of his existing permit. Mr. LaChapelle seconded the motion. All in favor motion so carried.

Novembers ZBA meeting will be held on November 17, 2009 and the Comprehensive Plan
meeting will be held on November 24, 2009.

Respectfully submitted,

Lori Saba


Shared By: