Loading...
1163 nn -- "-rr~"o-- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 .. irri.6inn' & OOrbrr Name' of Applicant: Taco Bell Corp. Address: 11 Eves Drive, Suite 170, Marlton, Location of Property: West side of Route 9 Nature of Request: Building Mounted Sign Variance Appeal #1163 MJ 08053 Grid No.1I19-6157-02-600971-00 Zone: Highway Business (HB) Date of Advertisement: January 19, 1994 Date of Public Hearing: January 25, 1994 Place of Hearing: Town Hall, 20 Middlebush Road, Wappingers Falls, New York MEMBERS PRESENT: Joel Sasser Chairman Michael Hirkala Vice'Chairman James Brooker Member The matter having duly come on to be heard before a duly convened meeting of the Board on'the 25th day of January 1994 and the facts, matters and evidence produced by the applicant, the Zoning Administrator and interested parties having been duly heard, received and considered and due deliberation having been had, the following are the FINDINGS OF FACT: Re: Taco Bell Inc. Alan Lehigh William Bitterlich Member Member Appeal #1163 The subject premises are located in an HB District on the westerly side of Route 9, 450 feet north of Middlebush Road in the Town of Wappinger, New York. The subject premises is a new building to be constructed by the Taco Bell, Corp., consisting of a 70 seat Taco Bell Restaurant. The applicant has requested a variance of Article IV, Section 416.61 as follows: to erect two building mounted signs, ,one on the north face of the building and one on.the east face of the building, where one sign is permitted, each at a width of 3' 9 1/2" instead of a maximum width of 3', requiring a variance in width of 9 1/2 inches, and the allowance of an additional sign. The Zoning Board of Appeals has declared itself as Lead Agency and has declared a Negative DeclaratIon. The Board heard testimony from Mr. Chris Richter, Engineer, Ms. Elizabeth Dolan of Atlantic Traffic Consultants and Mr. Jim Sparkes, Attorney for the applicant. Testimony from these expert witnesses stated that traffic patterns along Route 9, together with the distance of the premises from Route 9, the speed of vehicles along Route 9 and the configuration of the site pla~mandated that variances be granted for public safety. (Continued on attached page). THEREFORE,based upon the finding of fact, it is hereby ORDERED, that the application or appeal be and the same is hereby granted as follows: That the variance be granted sol~ to Taco Bell Restaurant and that it b~ rescinded at anytime the premises ceases to be ~perated as a Taco Bell Restaurant. , The decision of the Zoning Administrator is hereby reversed. Dated, Wappingers Falls, N.Y. this 28th day of January 1994 Filed 'Jffice of on 3/- day of Zoning STATE OFN~W YORK" 'CjE OF DUTCHESS ss: , On the 3;,m day of' '" ltfti<-f before me personally. Chairman:of the-Zonin Board of Appeals of the Town of Wapp ngers Falls, N. Y. known as the .individu~~ described inandwho executed the foregoing statements, acknowledged" that . he exeftl\!JllE ij}trM\l'6~ ~ .. .. ., . Nc9rARY PUllUC, STATE OF NEW ~o .. . NO. 14-3753ED " Ql!AL/FlED IN DlJTCH;;:3~~' -' aUu.. G ~ &1 A · mea"",,,,",,,,,,,,," OO~ ' Notary tp,e Town Clerk, Wappinger l'~,' . Y.' , \}a'l-\. l C(q l( :r \' (j , UJ ~ .j ~iV~HJp.!.- . TOWN CLERK to me and TOWN OF WAPPINGER P.O. Box 324 20 Middlebush Road Wappingers Falls, NY 12590-0324 ~. WAP/J/A, ~o.'" 'r',... ~. . ~'-'.'" -. . ....~: ~. . I,' . . ':;' o I- . > ~~. o :;'~f'1'l'" ~ c::. . ,> "A .'~ ~. ('I ~ ~~ /y~SS CO\) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Applicant: Appeal II: Page II: Taco Bell Corp. 1163 2 FINDINGS OF FACT (Continued): Expert testimony clearly stated that the sign needed to be a larger size than the ordinaRce allowed to provide for quick recognition and vision by vehicles traveling at a high rate of speed and at the distance between the proposed location and the travel lanes of Route 9. Testimony further showed that it was necessary for the sign on the north side of the building to be visible to southbound Route 9 traffic and for the sign on the west side of the building to northbound Route 9 traffic. Testimony showed that the total area as contained in two signs fell within the total square feet allowed for one sign. Expert testimony showed that placement of just one sign would prevent it from being seen by both north and southbound traffic thereby creating a possible danger for drivers attempting to find the restaurant. The board determined that as a result of the property being surrounded by commercial establishments, there would be no detriment to nearby properties and no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and in fact that the signs were designed to fit in with the character, style and architecture of the building and that modification of the signs might detract from the visual appearance of the building. After testimony it was the boards opinion that there were no other feasible methods to obtain the benefit sought, that the need for the variance was self created but not substantial in that no increase in square footage was requested and that no adverse effects on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood would occur. .- Unppingers Falls. New York 12590 ~ t IDrriHiol1 & Qf)rnrr o. ! Name of Applicant: Taco Bell Corp. Address: 11 Eves Drive, Suite 170, Maritan, Location of Property: West side of Route 9 Nature of Request: Building Mounted Sign Variance Appeal 111163 MJ 08053 Grid No.1119-6157-02-600971-00 Zone: Highway Business (HB) Date of Advertisement: January 19, 1994 Date of Public Hearing: January 25, 1994 Place of Hearing: Town Hall. 20 Middlebush Road, Wappingers Falls, New York }ffi}ffiERS PRESENT: Joel Sasser Chairman Michael lIirkala Vice. 'Chairman James Brooker Member The matter having duly come on to be heard before a duly convened meeting of the Board on'the 25th day of January 1994 and the facts, matters and evidence produced hy the applicant, the Zoning Administrator and interested parties having been duly heard. received and considered and due deliberation having been had. the following are the FINDINGS OF FACT: Re: Taco Bell Inc. Alan Lehigh William Bitterlich Member Member Appeal 111163 The subject premises are located in an HB District on the westerly side of Route 9, /.50 feet north of Middlebush Road in the Town of Wappinger, New York. The subject premises is a new building to be constructed by the Taco Bell, Corp., consisting of a 70 seat Taco Bell Restaurant. TIle applicant has requested a variance of Article IV, Section 416.6] as follows: to erect two building mounted signs, ,one on the north face of the building and one on .the east face of the building, where one sign is permitted, each at a width of 3' 9 1/2" instead of a maximum width of 3', requiring a variance in width of 9 1/2 inches, and the allowance of an additional sign. The I.oning Board of Appeals has declared itself as Lead Agency and has declared a Negative Declarat'j:on. The Board heard testimony from Mr. Chris Richter, Engineer, Ms. Elizabeth Dolan of Atlantic Tra!fic Consultants and Mr. Jim Sparkes, Attorney for the applicant. Testimony from these expert witnesses stated that traffic patterns along Route 9, together with the distance of the premises from Route 9, the speed of vehicles along Rotlte 9 and the configuration of the site plan mandated that variances be granted for public safety. (Continued on attached page). 'I'ITEREFORE,hased upon the finding of fact, it is hereby ORDERED, that the application or appeal be and the same is hereby granted as follows: That the variance he granted sol~ to Taco Bell Restaurant and that it be rescinded at anytime the premises ceases to be ~perated as a Taco Bell Restaurant. , The decision of the Zoning Administrator is hereby, reversed. Dated, Wappingers Falls, N. Y. this 28th day of January 1994 Zoning STATE OF NEW YORK,,' COffF' OF DUTCHESS ss: On the ~~I/Jj- day of' '-, h 111/'-/ before me personally. ame Joel, Sasser Chai.rman' of the' Zonin Board of Appeals of the Town of '.}appingers Falls, N. Y. to me known as the individua.l described in. andwho executed the foregoing statements, and acknowledged' that he exe~AfNlE t:P.'SNOVY5 C'------".\ ", N6rARYFUDUC'STIi'l':';OFNL;'~~on~'- ~ . \' \S' . NO. 14-3753!SO _ ---17' :.n J . () Ql!WFJED III DIJTCfl;:3~/l!mY - - ~ 01..1.. (It ~ -. LAJ\.J ('\l f!I , MY Cl1MM!SSiOi': EXPIRES JAIl ~ ~ Not a ry FD.e_cl, pffjce of t~_ Town C,lerk, Wappingers F~1"1~S'1l'.' Y. . ..' on _2/~ day of C,..., ( ) . ,1\ I i <( l. (I \' (. _..- ) 'J \" I . cUt ~ - ~..j "-.J.{ l (f'l. 1(( I"t- o . TOWN CTJERK. ~4 TOWN OF WAPPINGER P.O. Box 324 20 Middlebush Road Wappingers Falls, NY 12590-0324 ~ WAPp," _~.OA~_~~ ~"",h, 'r':~' - .~..~. 0/ ' . \~ I-! .... . . \> 'O\'~)~' c::.... ~ ~. ", . ~ / " ",~. ' / ~4.. /y~SS CO~ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Applicant: Appeal tI: Page tI: Taco Bell Corp. 1163 2 FINDINGS OF FACT (Continued): Expert testimony clearly stated that the sign needed to be a larger size than the ordinance allowed to provide for quick recognition and vision by vehicles traveling at a high rate of speed and at the distance between the proposed location and the travel lanes of Route 9. Testimony further showed that it was necessary for the sign on the north side of the building to be visible to southbound Route 9 traffic and for the sign on the west side of the building to northbound Route 9 traffic. Testimony showed that the total area as contained in two signs fell within the total square feet allowed for one sign. Expert testimony showed that placement of just one sign would prevent it from being seen by both north and southbound traffic thereby creating a possible danger for drivers attempting to find the restaurant. The board determined that as a result of the property being surrounded by commercial establishments, there would be no detriment to nearby properties and no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and in fact that the signs were designed to fit in with the character, style and architecture of the building and that modification of the signs might detract from the visual appearance of the building. After testimony it was the boards opinion that there were no other feasible methods to obtain the benefit sought, that the need for the variance was self created but not substantial in that no increase in square footage was requested and that no adverse effects 'on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood would occur. Town of Wappinger ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Wappingers Falls. New York 12590 1Drrt.6inn & OOrbrr Name of Applicant: Frederick J. Becker, Jr. Address: Old Ketchamtown Rd., W. F. Location of PropertY:Old Ketchamtown Rd., W. F. Nature of Request: A variance from Article IV, Section 412 where you are required to have 50 ft. on a Town road. Appeal 11 1169 Grid No.#6156-01 317948 Zone: R-40 frontage Date of Advertisement: May II, 1994 Date of Public Hearing: MAY 24, L994 Place of Hearing: Town Hall. 20 Middlebush Road, Wappingers Falls, New York MEMBERS PRESENT: Joel Sasser Chairman Michael Hirkala Vice Chairman Alan Lehigh Member The matter having duly come on to be heard before a duly convened meeting of the Board on the 24th day of May 1994 and the fact.s, matters and evidence produced by the applicant, the Zoning Administrator and interested parties having been duly heard, received and considered and due deliberation having been had, the following are the FINDINGS OF FACT: Howard Prager WIn. Bitterlich Member Member By resolution of the Board it was determined that: The appellant does not have fifty feet of frontage on Old Ketchamtown Road, a town road. The appellant requested a variance to allow a private driveway on to a town road with less than fifty feet of frontage. At the present time the lot is 10.064 ~ acres. The proposed subdividing would create two legal building lots. The applicant proposed a joint-use driveway to be used by the two building lots. The applicant indicated that it was his intention to offer the second parcel for sale. It was determined that: the granting of this variance would create a far reaching precedence in the Town that the Zoning Board would be compelled to fol~ow in future variances. It was further determined that: (a) The r~quested variance would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood by allowing multiple use of substandard roadways on to town roads, both by this property and by other properties that the ZBA would be compelled to grant if following precedent. THEREFORE,based upon the finding of fact, it is hereby ORDERED, that the application or appeal be and the same is hereby Denied The decision of the Zoning Administrator is hereby Upheld Dated, Wappingers Falls, N. Y. this 21.w- day of~~ /~,+'" ~p;~r~ Zoning Admi 1strator STATE OF NEW YORK,' COUNTY OF DUTCHESS.ss: On the Jt 17 day o~~ / YY'Y before me personally. c m 'I7.tI~..:. 5~ Chairman'-of the-Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wappin rs Falls, N. Y. to me known as the. individ. ua..~ describ. ed in andwho executed ~he fore ing Ltate ents, an.d acknowledged t~:~...m,~ h~ ex~cuted the same. ~f .. < kY PUBlIC.STATt. OF ItEI 10Rl --:r::-~ _ . A"9 .48&1'8'DUUlttsSCOUm q~ :d~ ~ ~OIUIlSSIOIt EXPIRES JUliE 10. . ~ Nota ry / Filed, Office of the Town Clerk, Wappingers Falls. '.. . on 3/10 day of ~ I:H'r'" ruAA!~1~^",^.J1A- T WN CLERK (b) Substantial detriment would be created to nearby properties by the creation of another building lot and multiple building lots using roadways not built to town standards both on this property and by other variances on properties that the ZBA would be compelled to grant if following this precedent. (c) There are other feasible methods available for the appellant to pursue to achieve the benefit sought other than the requested variance such as building a roadway or cul-de-sac that would meet town standards. (d) The requested variance is substantial in that it has far reaching effects townwide in that precedent could be set that the town would be bound to follow. (e) The proposed variance would not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district as either a town road or a private drive serving one additional lot would have minimal impact. (f) The alleged difficulty was self created in that the appellant could have subdivided the parcel prior to zoning and been grandfathered.