VIEWS: 14 PAGES: 5 POSTED ON: 4/20/2010
ZBA Minutes – 1-26-07 Town of New Scotland Zoning Board Minutes January 23, 2007 Present: William Hennessey, Chairman, Adam Greenberg, Robert Parmenter, Wayne LaChapelle, Todd Britton Also Present: Lou Neri, Town Attorney; Paul Cantlin, Town Inspector; Keith Menia, Town Engineer Public Hearing 7:00 P.M.: Cancelled Amended Variance Application # 362: Application submitted by Sherman Coonradt, on behalf of Catherine and Walter Vivenzio, for relief from Article XIII, Section 190-99 of the Zoning Law, Article VIII, Section 164-59 of the Subdivision Law, and relief from Article 16, Section 280-a of NYS Town Law to allow for a proposed subdivision of two pre-existing/non-conforming lots owned by Mr. and Mrs. Vivenzio. The lots are located on Fielding Way within the R2 district and are identified as New Scotland tax parcels # 63.-4-20 and #63.-4-21. The Applicant requests relief to allow for these lots to be subdivided, thereby creating a new building lot that lacks the required road frontage. The Zoning Law, Article XIII, Section 190-99 and the Subdivision Law Article VIII, Section 164-59 require that all newly created lots have not less than 50 feet of road frontage held in fee on a public highway. NYS Town Law Article 16, Section 280-a requires a lot to have a minimum of fifteen feet of road frontage, held in fee, on a public street in order to obtain a building permit. The parcels proposed for subdivision are located at a distance of 1800+/- feet off Krum Kill Road and have no access held in fee to any public street. Current access to these sites is provided over lands of others by deeded rights of ingress and egress over a "road way" known as Fielding Way. The Applicant plans to merge a parcel, identified as tax id # 63.-4-18.1 which contains 1.2 acres and has road frontage held in fee on Salem Court, with the remaining lands of tax parcel id # 63.-4-20, thereby creating a conforming lot. Continuation Hearing Variance Application # 363: Application submitted by Sterling Lawrence, on behalf of the First Assembly Church Of God, for relief from Article III, Section 190-32 (A) (2) (c)of the Zoning Law to be allowed to erect a detached, 24 square foot sign.. The site is The First Assembly of God Church which is located at 9 Mariana Lane, it lies within the Residential Conservation District and is identified as New Scotland tax parcel id# 63.-4-28. Article III, Section 190-32 (A) (2) (c) of the Zoning Law allows for not more than two signs pertaining to a permitted use with a total sign area of not more than 16 square feet each. This application is requesting 8 square feet of relief to allow for the erection of one sign with a total area of 24 square feet. Mr. Hennessey invited Mr. Rossi to explain to the Board his variance application request. Mr. Rossi explained that he is modifying the application to a sign that would be 5 x 2-1/2 feet. It is a ½ foot too big. Mr. Hennessey: Is the appearance going to be a little different than previously proposed. Mr. Rossi: Yes, because now it won’t be down on concrete it will be five-feet wide and 2 ½ feet deep. Mr. Greenberg: Do you have a picture or drawing? Mr. Rossi: Presented the Board with a picture. It will stand probably about 6 feet. Mr. Hennessey: Let’s now talk about both issues before we open it up to the public. 1 ZBA Minutes – 1-26-07 Mr. Rossi: Sure. Continuation Hearing Variance Application # 364: Application submitted by Sterling Lawrence, on behalf of the First Assembly Church Of God, for relief from Article III, Section 190-32 (C) (7) of the Zoning Law to be allowed to illuminate a detached, 24 square foot sign. Article III, Section 190-32 (A) (7) of the Zoning Law only allows for signs to be illuminated only within a Commercial or an Industrial District. The illuminated sign is proposed for The First Assembly of God Church property which is located at 9 Mariana Lane which lies within the Residential Conservation District and is identified as New Scotland tax parcel id# 63.-4-28. Mr. Hennessey: What type of illumination are you proposing on the new sign? Mr. Rossi: The last meeting we had you were preferring to have it exterior. I called our sign guy and he says this is definitely less illuminating. Plus you can cut it 50% to what it is by using electric tape and going around the fluorescent bulbs. Almost like a barbershop light. It is dark out there. The proposal is to have the lighting right in the sign, interior. Mr. Greenberg: I think our town engineer last month asked you for measurements at the road for how much light that would produce. Mr. Menia: Yes. I did. The previous application we did ask for some kind of quantitative, how bright this would be at the property line. Mr. LaChapelle: What watt bulbs are you going to use? Mr. Rossi: 110 I believe, three of them, but the sign is a lot smaller than what we were proposing. If we had the lights on the outside would you be asking the same questions? Mr. Menia: Yes. Mr. Rossi: It’s because of the lighting inside. Mr. Menia: We try to ask for lighting on all the lit signs we did for example, Stewarts, JJ Maddens as well. We didn’t go as far with JJ Maddens, because the type of light that he was using were very focused on the sign and they were exterior and we were very familiar with the type of intensity that would be. The lights focused down on the sign itself as opposed to something from the inside. Yes, we do ask for that. Mr. Hennessey: You are keeping the similar design of the sign. Four feet of the sign would be for messages? Mr. Rossi: It would have our services on there also. There would be interchangeable messages on the sign. Mr. Hennessey: I would still prefer to see the data from the illumination of that sign. The lumens from the last meeting, that amount of light is something that we have to make sure is acceptable along the property line. Mr. Rossi: You would then agree to the lights inside the sign then? Mr. Hennessey: Well, the illumination we talked about similar signs that we’ve had in town that we prefer that type of gooseneck design an external illumination. It would be focused on the sign instead of focused away from the sign. Those are the types that we have allowed as Mr. Menia has mentioned. 2 ZBA Minutes – 1-26-07 Mr. Rossi: What is the wattage with that type of sign? Mr. Hennessey: It could be 40 watt on the top and on the bottom or 60 watt. Mr. Menia: Certainly if you want to take a trip down to JJ Maddens. I think those are 100 watt or 150 watt bulbs. In your presentation last time when you said 9,000 lumens to give you like an example this room is probably only 150 to 200 lumens. 9,000 lumens is extremely high. Mr. Rossi: Don’t forget if you tape the light up you will cut that in half. Mr. Menia: Right, and that is in part why we ask for the photo metrics, which as you look at your plan what they do it actually calculates how intense the light is going to be as it gets away from the sign itself. Your sign person, if they are doing lighting, should understand what a photo metric submission is. Mr. Rossi: Does it make a difference if it is shining on our property? We are 65-feet away coming from the west from the east property line. Mr. Menia: Right. The photo metrics analysis goes to the extent of your property line and it actually calculates how bright it is going to be as that distance increases and as it tapers off with distance. You need the photo metrics. Mr. Rossi: Where do we get the information on the lights on the exterior? Mr. Menia: Your lighting person. A lighting catalogue tells you the drop off of the lights. Mr. Rossi: What would you guess-a-mate at the Madden’s sign? Mr. Menia: It’s probably one lumen at the property line. Stewart’s is one lumen at the property line. Mr. Hennessey: One of the main reasons that sign was acceptable was because of the way it is focused, right on the sign. Mr. Neri: You have to bear in mind that these examples are all examples of illuminated signs that are in commercial districts, which are allowed. Your MDR use doesn’t even allow illuminated signs. It is a use variance, so you have to go that extra mile. It is unique because you have a church. Most MDR uses don’t really require illumination or sign, but since you have a church which is allowed there you are not allowed to have a illuminated signs unless you meet this use variance criteria and so I believe the Board is trying to come to some kind of understanding with you so that you can achieve your purpose, but strict letter of the law you are not going to get an illuminated sign at all. Mr. Menia: This certainly does not put a financial burden on you to get a photo metrics usually a lighting supplier is willing to supply that information. The lighting manufacturers give that out very readily because they want to demonstrate what their signs can do. Mr. Neri: That will go a long way in helping support your case if you would be able to bring that data. Mr. Greenberg: We specifically asked for it last month and I think you agreed to it. Mr. Rossi: Okay, I’ll get it then. Mr. Cantlin: The other thing is that you are in a residential district and you’ve heard at the last public hearing that there was concern about a commercial Central Avenue sign there. They were far more interested in and were willing to accept a sign that would be more in line with keeping an old fashion 3 ZBA Minutes – 1-26-07 light. More in keeping with the district. Attention towards this internally illuminated sign was not the kind of intention they wanted. Inherently you can see them farther away than you can with the regular sign when the light shines towards it, rather than shining out of it. If you want to proceed with this then you have to provide the information that has been asked for. You can’t just come and say they told me this. You have to provide some kind of documentation that proves what you are saying. Mr. Hennessey: We will adjourn this public hearing until next month. Regular Meeting: Mr. Greenberg made a motion to accept the December 26, 2006 minutes and Mr. LaChapelle seconded the motion. Amended Variance Application # 365: Application submitted by Karen Spinelli for relief from Article II, Section 190-13 of the Zoning Law to allow for a proposed three-lot subdivision of a parcel owned by her. The parcel is located at 658 Krum Kill Road, lies within the R2 and MDR districts and is identified as New Scotland tax parcel # 63.-4-11.12. Applicant's request is to be allowed to provide the two 50 foot wide accesses needed for the two rear lots to be obtained from a second, separate parcel that fronts on Krum Kill Road that is also owned by Karen Spinelli. The second parcel lies within the MDR district and has a lot width of 234.28 feet. The subdivision would reduce the second parcel to a width of 134.28 feet. Article II, Section 190-13 of the Zoning Law requires a minimum lot width of 150 feet within the MDR district. This appeal is for 16 +/- feet of relief to allow for a parcel to be created with a lot width of 134 feet. Referred to the Planning Board on February 6, 2007 and a public hearing will be scheduled for the February 27, 2007 Zoning Board meeting. Use Variance Application # 368: Application submitted by Karen Spinelli for relief from Article II, Section 190-14 of the Zoning Law to allow for a proposed three lot subdivision with one of the lots containing a structure that is not allowed. The parcel is owner by Mrs. Spinelli, is located at 658 Krum Kill Road, lies within the R2 and MDR districts and is identified as New Scotland tax parcel # 63. -4- 11.12. Article II, Section 190-14 of the Zoning Law does not allow for a residential barn/storage type to be housed on a parcel that lacks a, permitted primary structure. Referred to the Planning Board on February 6, 2007 and a public hearing will be scheduled for the February 27, 2007 Zoning Board meeting. Variance Application # 366: Application submitted by Peter Schaming, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. John Barber, for relief from Article XIII, Section 190-99 of the Zoning Law, Article VIII, Section 164- 59 of the Subdivision Law, and relief from Article 16, Section 280-a of NYS Town Law to allow for a proposed subdivision of a pre-existing/non-conforming lot owned by Mr. and Mrs. Barber. The lot is a landlocked parcel abutting the Town line of the Towns of New Scotland and Berne. Access to the parcel is over lands of another parcel that has road frontage in the Town of Berne on Gulf Hill Road. The parcel contains 90+ acres, is located within the "RF" district, and is identified as New Scotland tax parcel id# 105.-1-1. The Zoning Law, Article XIII, Section 190-99 and the Subdivision Law Article VIII, Section 164-59 require that all newly created lots have not less than 50 feet of road frontage held in fee on a public highway. NYS Town Law Article 16, Section 280-a requires a lot to have a minimum of fifteen feet of road frontage, held in fee, on a public street in order to obtain a building permit. The Applicant requests relief for the purpose of allowing for this lot to be subdivided into two lots, one of 35+/- acres and the other 55+/- acres, with neither of the lots having the required frontage held in fee on a public road. Referred to the Planning Board on February 6, 2007 and a public hearing will be scheduled for the February 27, 2007 Zoning Board meeting. 4 ZBA Minutes – 1-26-07 Variance Application # 367: Application submitted by Stephen and Rada Jones for relief from Article III, Section 190-12 of the Zoning Law to be allowed to subdivide a parcel owned by them into four lots. The parcel is located within the "RA" District at 2051 Indian Fields Road and is identified as New Scotland Tax parcel id # 118.-3-3. The "RA" District requires a minimum front setback of 70 feet when located on a State Road. One of the proposed lots would house a pre-existing dwelling that has a front setback of 66 feet and a pre-existing accessory structure that has a front setback of 50 feet. This variance request is for 4 feet of relief from the front setback for the dwelling and for 20 feet of relief from the front setback for the accessory structure. Referred to the Planning Board on February 6, 2007 and a public hearing will be scheduled for the February 27, 2007 Zoning Board meeting. May 2007 meeting will be held on May 22, 2007. December 2007 meeting will be held on December 18, 2007. Next regular meeting Tuesday, February 27, 2007. Mr. Parmenter made a motion to adjourn and Mr. Greenberg seconded the motion. Respectfully submitted, Lori Saba 5
"Town of New Scotland - Get Now DOC"