Town of Southeast
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of March 15, 2010
Edward Colello, Chairman Present
Thomas Costello, Vice Chairman Present
Timothy Froessel Present
Joseph Castellano Present
Kevin Sheil Present
Paul Vink Present
Roderick Cassidy Present
Mary Rhuda, Admin Assistant Present
Charles Tessemer, ZOE Present
Regular Meeting:
James Moravick, 116 Route 22 - Mr. Moravick was sworn in, and the mailings were checked are in order. The applicant would like to build a 2-car garage with a walkup attic for storage. This property was up zoned from a R60 to a R160. The garage will be 24x28 in size, and due to the topography of the lot, there is nowhere else for the garage to be built. All areas on property will need a variance. A variance is also needed for the Building Separation requirement.
This lot originally had a garage in the same location, but was taken down before the applicant purchased the property. Mr. Moravick showed pictures of the area where the garage will be built as well as a survey and the plans. He has lived in the home for 6 years. Public hearing closed.
Motion introduced by T. Costello to grant the following variances:
Front Setback 30 ft.
East Side Setback 82 ft
West Side Setback 6 ft
Building Separation 8 ft
Seconded by P. Vink
Criteria:
1. Where an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood.
No, improving property.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance.
No, due to nature of property.
3. Where the requested variance is substantial.
Arguably yes, applicant needs 4 variances
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect of impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
No evidence.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
Yes, the applicant wants a garage.
Roll Call Vote:
R. Cassidy - In favor
J. Castellano - In favor
T. Froessel - In favor
T. Costello - In favor
K. Sheil - In favor
P. Vink - In favor
E. Colello - In favor
Variances granted by a vote of 7-0.
Two Starr Ridge Corporation, 2 Starr Ride Road – Chairman Colello recused himself from this applicant due to a personal relationship with applicants.
Mr. Rossi is representing Two Starr Ridge Corporation and is requesting a sign variance for a new office to be built on this site. The Town code states that no sign shall be located less than 15ft from the front property line. A 14ft variance is requested. There is a 87ft right of way on this property. There are no other variances that will be needed. The dimensions of the sign comply with the current Town sign ordinance. The building is set in the rear of the lot because of its proximity to the highway. The placement of the sign is logical due to the large right of way. Public hearing closed
Motion introduced by T. Froessel to grant a 14ft variance from the setback requirements for the proposed sign.
Seconded by K. Sheil
Criteria:
1. Where an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood.
No. Building will be a positive for neighborhood.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance.
Not really, due to width of right of way.
3. Where the requested variance is substantial.
Yes.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect of impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
No.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
Created by the large right of way.
Roll Call Vote:
K. Sheil - In favor
P. Vink - In favor
R. Cassidy - In favor
J. Castellano - In favor
T. Froessel - In favor
T. Costello - In favor
Variance granted by a vote of 6-0. 1 abstention.
Stateline Retail Center, US Route 6/202 – The public hearing for this application was reopened. The applicant was submitted changes to the originally requested sign variances. Mr. Camarda and his business associates have reconfigured some of the requested variances and submitted a new color-coded chart. They are now requested 27 variances instead of 30, and have reduced the size of 3 additional signs. The Board was shown new pictures of the signs by the applicant.
A discussion about the monument signs ensued. The M-1 and M-2 monument signs will have signs on 2 sides, the M-3 monument will have signs on 1 side.
It was again discussed that the current sign ordinance is not realistic for box stores that are permitted in this district. The applicant stated that he was asked by the Planning Board and the Town Board to design a shopping center so not to be able to see the parking lot. In doing so, they are now requiring signs so retailers can be seen to prospective customers. Public hearing closed.
The Board again discussed the decrease in variances requested. Some Board members feel that the number of signs is a problem. They feel that if a variance is granted, it will definitely be used. They are requested to grant variances for hypothetical signs. A Board member feels this is a terrific project, and they understand the need for signs, but how many is the question. The Board discussed the possibility of voting on the signs line for line vs. a vote as a whole.
Motion introduced by P. Vink to grant the building mounted variances as proposed in Exhibit A.
Seconded by K. Sheil.
Criteria:
1. Where an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood.
No. Want to be able to see the signs from Rt. 6 or Rt. 84.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance.
No, considering the scope of the project and existing sign code.
3. Where the requested variance is substantial.
Absolutely, a lot of variances are requested.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect of impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
No negative impact shown.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
No, in order to compete, signs are needed to attract retailers and customers.
Roll Call Vote:
K. Sheil - In favor
P. Vink - In favor
R. Cassidy - Opposed
J. Castellano - In favor
T. Froessel - Opposed
T. Costello - Opposed
E. Colello - In favor
The Board now discussed the sign variances requested for the Monument Signs on Route 6. They feel that this part of the application needs to be renoticed. The height information on the charts needs to be clearer. It is also requested that each side of the monuments indicate who many signs will be located on them.
The applicant will have to submit a new application with new paperwork.
Motion introduced by T. Costello to accept the minutes of February, 2010 as submitted.
Seconded by P. Vink. All in favor, minutes accepted by a vote of 7-0.
| 
