Loading...
1999-06-08Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals June 8, 1999 Summarized Minutes Members Present MINUTES APPROVED MINUTES JUL 13 199,9 Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappingers Falls, NY Mr. Prager: Chairman Mr. Lehigh: Vice Chairman Mr. Fanuele: Member Mr. diPierno: Member Mr. Warren: Member Others Present Mrs. Nguyen, Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals SUMMARIZED Minutes to be approved: May 25, 1999 -- Accepted Public Hearings: Heart Acura -- Granted 2 variances with conditions Mobil Oil Corp. -- Granted 4 variances with conditions MINUTES Mr. Lehigh made a motion to accept the May 25, 1999, minutes. Mr. Fanuele seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Appeal No. 99-7013 & 99-7014 -- At the request of Heart Acura, who is seeking two (2) variances of Article IV, Section 410.12.6.2 - Permanent Mounted Free Standing Signs; A. Appeal No. 99-7013 - A 25 sq. ft. permanent mounted free standing sign is permitted, the appellant is proposing 27 sq. ft., thus requiring a 2 sq. ft. permanent mounted free standing sign variance; and, B. Appeal No. 99-7014 - A 25 -foot front yard setback is required, the appellant is proposing a 5 -foot setback, thus requiring a 20 -foot front yard setback variance for a permanent mounted free standing sign. �•.� The property is located at 1468 NYS Route 9 and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6157-04-570395-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeals declared itself Lead Agency on May 25, 1999. The Zoning Board has not made a determination of significance pursuant to the State Environmental Quality MINUTES low' APPROVED Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - June 8, 1999 JUL 13 19"Page 2 Review Act and hereby reserves its right to make such determination after the conclusion of the public hearings. Mr. Marsh, President of Heart Acura, and Mrs. Fitzgerald, with Gloede Signs, were present. Mrs. Nguyen stated all the mailings were in order. Mr. Lehigh made a motion to open the public hearings. Mr. diPiemo seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Marsh explained they are requesting the setback variances because people entering the property enter from the southbound lane. fle stated the rock mass on the abutting property restricts the view of the dealership on the southbound side of Route 9. Customers end -up passing the entrance and then backing up on Route 9. Mrs. Fitzgerald added much of their frontage from the curb is owned by the DOT. Therefore, a normal 25 foot setback from the property line would put their sign in a place that nobody could see it. Mr. Marsh stated they are proposing the sign to be 55 feet from the road. **., Mr. Prager asked what was the setback from the road for the original sign. Mr. Marsh said 55 feet. The sign they are proposing would be 25 feet closer to the road. The original pylon sign was located in their parking lot. Mrs. Fitzgerald explained when they first came before the Board they were proposing to use the original Acura pylon sign and add a sign on top of that to match the square footage saying `Heart'. They realized what they were asking for was double what is allowed. They scaled it down so it is now proposed to be 3 square feet smaller than the original pylon sign although the original sign was found to be above the square footage allowed. Mr. Prager asked where the sign would be located. Mr. Marsh said the sign would be in line with the front of the cars. Mr. Lehigh questioned whether or not removing the berm has helped the dealership. Mr. Marsh said yes, it has made the dealership more visible, but not from the southbound approach. Mr. Prager asked if the Board or the public wanted to speak concerning this project. Mr. Fanuele did not feel the position of the sign or the sign will help. He suggested the applicant should consider switching their entrance and exit. He did not feel there is much difference between a 25 sq. ft. sign or a *`" 27 sq. ft. sign. Mr. Marsh felt it would cause more confusion and problems if they switch the entrance and exit. O - *MW V,, MINUTES Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals APPROVED Summarized Minutes - June 8, 1999 J U L 13 1999 Page 3 Mrs. Fitzgerald felt if they can get the pylon close enough to the road then the passing cars could see the Acura logo. The DOT has allowed Acura to have an entrance and exit sign, but no logos are permitted on them. Mr. diPierno made a motion to close the public hearings. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. diPierno made a motion for a Neg. Dec. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Fanuele made a motion to grant the variance for the pylon setback (5 feet from the property line) with the stipulation that if a third lane is ever built, then the Board should revisit their decision. He made a motion to grant the variance for the size of the pylon (to allow a 27 sq. ft. sign). Mr. diPierno seconded the motions. �. Mr. Fanuele stated the requested variances will not be detrimental to nearby properties. No undesirable change would occur to the character of the neighborhood. There is other feasible method available for the applicant to pursue to achieve the benefit sought other than the requested variances, but it would be very expensive to buy the adjacent property. The area variance for the sign is not substantial. The setback variance is substantial, but do to the distance from the road it is minimal. The proposed variances will not cause an adverse physical or environmental condition. The difficulty was not self-created. ROLL CALL: Mr. Warren: Aye. Mr. diPierno: Aye. Mr. Fanuele: Aye. Mr. Lehigh: Aye. Mr. Prager: Nay. He felt there would be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood because they are seeking an 80% setback variance. He did not feel the signage would help the applicant. Vote: All present, except Mr. Prager, voted in favor of granting both the pylon setback variance and the variance for the size of the pylon. The motion was carried. 2. Appeal Nos. 99-7012, 99-7015, 99-7016 & 99-7017 - At the request of Mobil Oil Corporation, who is seeking four (4) area variances; A. Appeal No. 99-7012 - In accordance with Article IV, Section 420.2, a 75 -foot front yard setback is required for the construction of a new building, the appellant is proposing 58 feet, thus requiring a 17 - foot front yard variance; and, *#AW MINUTES "410' APPROVED Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals J U L 13 1999 Summarized Minutes - June 8, 1999 Page 4 B. Appeal No. 99-7015 - In accordance with Article IV, Section 420.2, a 25 -foot rear yard setback is required for the construction of a new building, the appellant is showing 12 feet, thus requiring a 13 - foot rear yard variance; and, C. Appeal No. 99-7016 - In accordance with Article IV, Section 410.12.6.2, a 25 sq. ft. monument sign is permitted, the appellant is proposing 43.6 sq. ft., thus requiring an 18.6 sq. ft. free standing monument sign variance; and, D. Appeal No. 99-7017 - In accordance with Article IV, Section 410.12.6.7, one illuminated sign is permitted, the appellant is proposing 3 illuminated signs, thus requiring 2 illumination sign variances. All four variances requested are sought in order to raze the existing building which consists of a gasoline station / repair facility and convenience mart and redevelop the property by constructing a new gas station / convenience store. The property is located on the corner of NYS Route 82 and County Route 94 and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6356-01-223990-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board has not made a determination of significance pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and hereby reserves its right to make such determination after the conclusion of the public hearings. Mr. Virbickas, PE, and Mr. Romig, Esq. and Mr. El Jamal were present. Mrs. Nguyen stated all the mailings were in order. ,%. Mr. Warren made a motion to open the public hearings. Mr. diPierno seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager stated the Board held a site inspection on June 5"'. The ZBA received a letter dated June 8, 1999, from the Planning Board. The Planning recommended the front yard variance and the monument sign. They recommended only 2 signs be illuminated, the monument sign and the sign on the front of the building. However, they could not come to an agreement with regard to the rear yard variance. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated they reduced the size of the monument sign. Mr. Prager stated the applicant was supposed to eliminate the On The Run portion of the monument sign. However, they eliminated the sign but increased the Mobil sign. Mr. El Jamal explained that originally they proposed a Mobil sign and an On The Run sign of equal size under the Mobil sign. Then they asked to split the Mobil sign to include the Mobil sign and the On The Run Sign. According to the Planning Board, it was not what was on the sign, it was just that they were to reduce the size of the sign. So, they elected at that time to make the sign only for Mobil rather than have two small words split up on the sign. Mr. Virbickas, PE, stated they are presently proposing a 65 sq. ft. sign (5' X 12'), including the wall. Mr. Lehigh asked if the monument sign will be two sided. Iirr 14w MINU7=5 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals APPROvED Summarized Minutes -June 8, 1999 JUL I , 1999 Page 5 " — Mr. El Jamal said yes. Mr. Fanuele said there should be a stipulation that if the Board grants the variance, the size of the Mobil and price sign can not be altered. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated the applicant originally requested 3 illuminated signs whereas only 1 illuminated sign is permitted. The Planning Board recommended only 2 signs are to be illuminated, the monument and the sign on the front of the building. The applicant has eliminated their request for the sign on the side of the building to be illuminated. Mr. Prager asked if the convenience store will be opened 24 hours a day. He wanted to know when the signs would be lit. Mr. El Jamal stated the signs would run with the exterior lighting. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated they are requesting a front yard setback for the building. He stated the front yard will dictate what they will need for a rear yard variance. Their goal is to keep the building snug in the corner of the property. Mr. Virbickas, PE, stated the Code requires a 75 foot front yard setback. They are proposing 58 feet for a variance of approximately 17 feet. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated the plan presented to the Board was revised. He stated they removed the existing building from the plans so it does not look as cluttered. Mr. Virbickas, PE, stated they added a couple of cars to the plans so the Board can see even with someone filling up with gas there is 24 feet for someone to back up. Mr. Lehigh asked why Mr. El Jamal did not contact the Knights of Columbus regarding purchasing a small portion of the property next door. If they had purchased a small portion of the property, they would not need so many variances. Mr. El Jamal stated it is cost prohibitive. Mobil and Exxon are in the process of merging. He stated he does not own the property. He leases it from Mobil. He knew for a fact that Mobil can not acquire any more properties until after the merger goes through sometime in August. He stated 28 projects out of 7,700 have been budgeted for and this Mobil station is one of the 28. So they want to get a shovel in the ground as soon as possible. Otherwise they will take the money to another location. Mr. Prager said Mr. Jamal had previously stated that the building has to be a specific size. He asked if there is any way for them to reduce the size of the building. Mr. Romig, Esq. presented to the Board recent On The Run site plans for projects around the area. The On The Run approved and constructed on Route 202 in Haverstraw, New York is roughly a 3000 sq. ft. building on less than 1 acre. They required a rear yard, side yard, and front yard variance along with a parking variance. The 4W On The Run located in Poughkeepsie is roughly a 3000 sq. ft. building on less than 1 acre. They required a rear yard and side yard variance. The On The Run in New Rochelle is roughly a 3000 sq. ft. building on less than 1 acre. They required a side yard and rear yard variance. The On The Run located at 5 Corners, New Windsor is roughly 3400 sq. ft. on less than an acre. 'err MINUTES Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals APPROVED Summarized Minutes - June 8, 1999 JUL 13 1999 Page 6 Mr. El Jamal stated the Town of New Windsor has approved the project, but Mobil has not allocated the budget for the project. Mr. Prager asked about the On The Run in Lagrange. Mr. Virbickas, PE, stated he was unable to find the site plan for that project. Mr. E1 Jamal stated they have the same size building as what they are proposing. It is located on less than acre. They have parking on the side of the building as well as in the front of the building. Mr. Virbickas, PE, stated all of the equipment (for example, ovens, sinks, freezers, soda dispensers, etc.) and counter tops are all the same size. The pieces that they order are from the same manufacturer. This allows them to reduce the cost of construction. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated that is from an Engineering standpoint. There is also a marketing standpoint. That is that a building has to be a certain size because there are certain products that they have to offer. Mr. Virbickas, PE, stated the building will be handicapped accessible not only for customers, but also for employees. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated they could move the building forward, but they put the building towards the rear line because that is what the Planning Board wanted in the beginning. Then, there was a question of where the rear line is located due to the odd shape of the parcel. That is what makes this unique and different. He stated it is important for them to maintain a particular size of the building to support the investment from a construction standpoint to keep the cost down and make sure it is successful and it will repay the debt. He stated they demonstrated to the ZBA from site plans of other On The Run's in the area that they are not being greedy. Mr. Lehigh stated he has a problem with granting a rear yard setback. He stated the Town has an Ordinance and they should abide by the Laws. He stated they should have purchased some land from the abutting owner. Then, they probably would have needed only a variance for the sign. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated the lot is a unique lot since it is a corner lot that is has an irregular shape. They are refurbishing an existing location where the existing building does not meet the rear line. He stated there is no variance on file for the existing building. He assumed that mean that the then Zoning Administrator probably determined the rear line is by the septic system, not behind the building. If that is the case, then they do not need a variance. Mr. Fanuele stated at some point and time the Knights of Columbus might not own the abutting property. They have the option of knocking down the trees that Mobil is relying on for a buffer. He wanted to see some type of screening around the dumpster. Mr. El Jamal stated the dumpster will be enclosed in a storage area. Mr. Fanuele stated the concrete pad in the back also needs some type of screening. He said if the trees next r.. door are removed, then Mobil should come back for more screening on Mobil's property. Mr. El Jamal agreed to that. MINUTES *1W APPROVED JUL Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - June 8, 1999 Page 7 Mr. Prager asked if the Board or the public wanted to speak concerning this project. Hearing none; Mr. Lehigh made a motion for a Neg. Dec. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager logged into evidence drawings dated 2/8/99 by Tyree Engineering for Mobil Oil Corp. A letter dated June 8, 1999, from the Planning Board. Mr. Virbickas, PE, added the drawings were revised through 6/3/99. He stated the sign and landscaping were changed. Mr. Lehigh made a motion to close the public hearings. Mr. diPierno seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. A. Appeal No. 99-7012 - In accordance with Article IV, Section 420.2, a 75 -foot front yard setback is .`,. required for the construction of a new building, the appellant is proposing 58 feet, thus requiring a 17 - foot front yard variance. Mr. Fanuele made a motion to grant a 17 foot front yard variance. Mr. diPierno seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Mr. Warren: Aye. Mr. diPierno: Aye. Mr. Fanuele: Aye. Mr. Lehigh: Aye. Mr. Prager: Aye. Vote: All present voted aye to grant a 17 foot front yard variance. Mr. Prager stated the requested variance would not be detrimental to nearby properties. No undesirable change will occur to the character of the neighborhood. There is no alternative method since they have moved the building back as far as they can on the property. The variance is not substantial. The variance will not cause an adverse affect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The difficulty is self-created. Those are the reasons the Board granted the variance. B. Appeal No. 99-7015 - In accordance with Article IV, Section 420.2, a 25 -foot rear yard setback is required for the construction of a new building, the appellant is showing 12 feet, thus requiring a 13 - foot rear yard variance. Mr. Fanuele made a motion to grant the 13 foot rear yard variance with the following conditions that the dumpster and the pad area where they put their mechanical equipment shall be *MW MINUTES '"OW APPROVED Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals JUL 13 1999 Summarized Minutes - June 8, 1999 Page 8 adequately screened. If in the future the buffer area that is on the Knights of Columbus parcel is eliminated, then Mobil will have to plant a buffer on their own property. Mr. diPiemo seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Mr. Warren: Aye. Mr. diPierno: Aye. Mr. Fanuele: Aye. Mr. Lehigh: Nay. Mr. Prager: Aye. Vote: All present, except Mr. Lehigh, voted aye to grant the 13 foot rear yard variance with the following conditions that the dumpster and the pad area where they put their mechanical equipment shall be adequately screened. If in the future the buffer area that is on the Knights of Columbus parcel is eliminated, then Mobil will have to plant a buffer on their own property. Mr. Prager stated the requested variance would not be detrimental to nearby properties. No undesirable change will occur to the character of the neighborhood. There could be an alternative method. They could reduce the size of the building, but it is not practical. The variance is substantial, 52%. The variance will not cause an adverse affect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The difficulty is self-created. Those are the reasons the Board granted the variance. C. Appeal No. 99-7016 - In accordance with Article IV, Section 410.12.6.2, a 25 sq. ft. monument sign is **AW permitted, the appellant is proposing 43.6 sq. ft., thus requiring an 18.6 sq. ft. free standing monument sign variance. Mr. Prager stated the applicant is no longer requesting a 43.6 sq. ft. sign. They revise their request and are presently seeking a 65 sq. Ft. Free standing monument sign, which includes the wall. Thus, requesting a 40 sq. Ft. Sign variance. Mr. Fanuele added, if the Board grants the variance there should be a stipulation that the size of the Mobil sign and the pricing sign, a total of 43.6 sq. ft., can not be altered. Mr. Lehigh said so moved. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Mr. Warren: Aye. Mr. diPierno: Aye. Mr. Fanuele: Aye. Mr. Lehigh: Aye. Mr. Prager: Aye. Vote: All present voted aye to grant a 40 sq. ft. monument sign variance with the stipulation that the Mobil sign and pricing sign (43.6 sq. ft.) can not be altered. Mr. Prager stated the requested variance would not be detrimental to nearby properties. No undesirable vftw change will occur to the character of the neighborhood. There could be an alternative method, but it would not be in the best interest of the area as far as visual. VO. on *4%,, MINUTES , APPROVED Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals JUL 13 1999 Summarized Minutes - June 8, 1999 Page 9 Mr. Lehigh added the Board has taken into consideration the Planning Boards recommendations as listed in their June 8rh letter. Mr. Prager stated the variance is substantial, but it will not cause an adverse affect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The difficulty is self-created. Those are the reasons the Board granted the variance. D. Appeal No. 99-7017 - In accordance with Article IV, Section 410.12.6.7, one illuminated sign is permitted, the appellant is proposing 3 illuminated signs, thus requiring 2 illumination sign variances. Mr. Prager stated previously the applicant was seeking 3 illuminated signs whereas only 1 is permitted. Now, they are proposing 2 illuminated signs. Mr. Virbickas, PE, said at the recommendation of the Planning Board, they have eliminated their request for an illuminated sign on the side of the building. Mr. Warren made a motion to grant one additional illuminated sign. The only signs to be illuminated are the monument sign and the sign on the front of the building. Mr. diPiemo seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Mr. Warren: Aye. Mr. diPierno: Aye. Mr. Fanuele: Aye. Mr. Lehigh: Aye. Mr. Prager: Aye. Vote: All present voted aye to grant one additional illuminated sign. The only signs to be illuminated are the monument sign and the sign on the front of the building. Mr. Prager stated the requested variance would not be detrimental to nearby properties. No undesirable change will occur to the character of the neighborhood. There is no alternative method. The variance is not substantial. It will not cause an adverse affect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The difficulty is self-created. Those are the reasons the Board granted the variance. Mr. Fanuele added the signs can only be lit from dusk to dawn. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated a lighting plan was submitted to the Planning Board. Mr. diPierno made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:35 PM. Respectfully fitted, O'i�Nguyen, Secretary Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals