Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2017

Transcription

1 , Town of Malta Zoning Board of Appeals 2540 Route 9 Malta, NY Phone: Fax: Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2017 Ray Liuzzo - Chairman Tim Larson Warren Cressman Bob Bush Leo Martin Guy Cervera Virginia Whitman Michael Williams (alt) Stanley Wilock (alt) Leah Everhart, Counsel Floria Huizinga Planner Lin Gamache - Secretary The Town of Malta Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting on October 3, 2017 at the Malta Town Hall with Chairman Tim Larson presiding. The salute to the flag was led by Mr. Larson. The Introductory Statement was read. Legal advertisement was in the Daily Gazette on September 19, PRESENT: ABSENT: Tim Larson, Virginia Whitman, Leo Martin, Warren Cressman Mike Williams- alternate Floria Huizinga- Planning Technician; Mark Schachner- Attorney Bob Bush, Ray Liuzzo, Guy Cervera, Stan Wilock MINUTES: Motion made by WHITMAN, seconded by CRESSMAN, to approve the September 5, 2017 minutes VOTE: Martin-yes; Larson-yes; Whitman-yes; Cressman-yes; Williams-yes AGENDA APPEAL NO Sitwell Enterprises APPROVED Scott Lansing: Lansing Engineering Location: 2443 Route 9 Area variance/sign variance. APPEAL NO Mr. Lansing, Sitwell Enterprises, LLC, requested area variances/sign variances in the Form Based Code (FBC) DX-3 and GC-3 Zoning Districts. The property is located at 2443 Route 9, Sitwell Plaza. The current allotment for wallmounted signs is one square foot per lineal foot of building length. Building #2 is 154 feet in length and Building #3 is 150 feet in length so current code allows for 154 square feet of signage for Building 2 and 150 square feet for Building 3.

2 ZBA MINUTES 2 Mr. Lansing disclosed that he is part owner of Sitwell Enterprises and that Sitwell Plaza consists of three buildings and the buildings being considered for increased signage are in the back of the plaza. Mr. Lansing s first tenant, Crystal Nail Salon and Spa is in Building 2 put up a sign in accordance with the Form Based Code, but from Route 9 the sign looks small and they are disappointed in the visibility from Route 9. Mr. Lansing provided drawings showing what is currently accepted for signage on the buildings, and what the increased signage would look like if doubled. Sitwell Enterprises is allowed a development sign on each building to identify the overall plaza, which is the same allotment given to tenants, but they have no interest in putting one up. Sitwell would rather apply the allowed square footage of the development sign to the tenant signage, so there is greater visibility from Route 9. Mr. Lansing believes the increased signage size looks appropriate for the plaza. Ms. Whitman asked Mr. Lansing if the tenants are paying for the signage and Lansing confirmed that tenants are responsible and that Crystal Nails would purchase a second sign if the increased size is approved. Mr. Lansing has other tenants (Wired Coffee and Legends Barbershop) who are awaiting the outcome of this meeting before they purchase permanent signs. Ms. Whitman also asked if Mr. Lansing has plans to put an additional plaza sign up, and Mr. Lansing said he s waiting to find out if amendments are made to the current code. Planning Technician, Ms. Huizinga, indicated that the board has seen this type of variance before. The sign type proposed by the applicant has been classified by Building Department staff as Wall Signs. Form-Based Code Section 5.3H Signs allows for wall-mounted signs in the amount of one square foot per lineal foot of building length. Form-Based Code Section 5.3H (Multi-tenant Sign) 1. A development designed to accommodate at least 3 nonresidential tenants is allowed one additional square foot of sign area per lineal foot of building façade, to be used exclusively as wall signage to display the name of the development or center. Building #2 is 154 lineal feet in length, therefore a total of 154 SF of wall signage for the building is allowed. In addition to the wall sign, a 154 SF sign to display the development name is allowed. The applicant is proposing a total of 308 SF of wall signage for multi-tenant identification, requiring a variance for the allowed wall signage. Building #3 is 150 lineal feet in length, therefore a total of 150 SF of wall signage for the building is allowed. In addition to the wall sign, a 150 SF sign to display the development name is allowed. The applicant is proposing a total 300 SF of wall signage for multi-tenant identification requiring a variance for the allowed wall signage. Ms. Huizinga mentioned that SEQRA was performed so it s not necessary to do so again at this time. One recommendation that is requested is if variances are allowed, Sitwell Enterprises should update their Common Sign Plan and file it with the Planning Department. This is to ensure that if a variance is granted, it is documented in Mr. Lansing s Common Sign Plan. When there is a site plan or project plan with multiple buildings, the Planning Department likes to see some commonality for the tenant signs, whether it s in writing or as a rendering, so when CEOs go to issue sign permits they ll know what is allowed and what they re looking for and there will be consistency throughout the development. This also makes it easier for Sitwell Enterprises in the future if tenants change.

3 ZBA MINUTES 3 Mr. Martin asked if the Town was looking at amendments to the sign code down the road and Ms. Huizinga confirmed that there may be changes to the Town s Sign Code but that shouldn t impact the wall signs in question. Mr. Lansing is currently only allowed a bracket sign at the entrance of the plaza, which is not sufficient for the size of Sitwell plaza. The Town Board is currently working on revising the Town s sign code. Mr. Cressman asked for clarification about this variance. He wondered if the square footage allowed for signage is 300 and there are 8 tenants now, but down the road there is only one tenant, if that tenant will be allowed the entire 300 square footage of signage. Ms. Huizinga confirmed that the signage allowed is in accordance with the storefront size, so one tenant could have all 300 allowable square feet of signage if they occupied the entire building. Ms. Huizinga reiterated that Sitwell is not increasing the overall amount of signage allowed for the buildings. Mr. Williams asked if the signs were electronic. Mr. Lansing stated the signs are internally lit, and that they do not flash or change. This type of sign is what is in their plans for other tenants. Acting Chairman Larson opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.. Mary Mahoney, 163 Arrowwood Place, is a board member of the Homeowners Association. Ms. Mahoney had the following concerns regarding light spillage onto adjacent property owners located on Penny Royal; whether the signs would be lit and visible to residents in Luther Forest; she also requested that the lit signs have a time limit to when they can be lit. Mr. Lansing explained that the signs would be blocked by the backs of the buildings and that the tenant signs face Route 9 and that the tenants control the lighting of the signs but could possibly keep them lit 24 hours a day. The Sitwell Plaza site lighting goes off at 10:00 PM. Ms. Mahoney said that she hoped if after the signs are up, that if they are considered to be intrusive, the Board would revisit her concern. She asked if tonight s decision is final. Mr. Larson confirmed that whatever decision the Board makes tonight, will be binding on the Applicant. He said that Motions aren t issued which are open-ended but the Board will take into account what Ms. Mahoney said. Mr. Lansing would prefer there not be any restrictions on his tenants. The purpose of the lighting is to illuminate the signs so they can be seen from Route 9. Ms. Mahoney further requested that the Board consider leaving more of a buffer between builders plans and homeowners property on future projects. She acknowledged that there was indeed a fence put up by the builder, but that it is right up against the residents property line. Acting Chairman Larson reiterated that with respect to the ZBA and Building Department, there are codes that need to be enforced and they are relatively clear and the Board has a responsibility to uphold them. There were no further questions or comments. Acting Chairman Larson closed the public hearing at 7:28 PM.

4 ZBA MINUTES 4 Chairman Larson requested a motion for addressing SEQRA. MOTION by CRESSMAN SECONDED by MARTIN. The Zoning Board of Appeals finds that Appeal Sitwell Enterprises, Inc., Area Variance for Signage, falls within the thresholds of the Supplemental Town Wide GEIS and Statement of Findings, that no other subsequent large and important adverse impacts are likely to occur, and therefore the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 are met. VOTE: Williams-yes; Martin-yes; Cressman-yes; Whitman-yes; Larson-yes. Counsel Schachner made an additional comment that while considering the variance for increasing the square footage of the signs, the percent relief is actually 100%, not 200%; it would be doubled, in effect. Acting Chairman Larson asked for a volunteer to go through the balancing criteria and Mr. Cressman agreed to do so. In making its determination, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such a determination the board shall also consider: whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance Cressman: with respect to the signage, no All others present agreed. whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance Cressman: no All others agreed whether the requested area variance is substantial at 100% for each location Cressman: yes, 100% for each location is substantial Larson: it is substantial, but I think the question really should be whether it s relevant Cressman: we are doubling the allowable signage so it is substantial. Larson: For the plaza, is the overall amount of signage a relevant change? Cressman: I understand, but I still think that 100% is a substantial change. All others agree that it is a substantial change, but Larson wanted to add with clarification that overall signage with respect to the building doesn t change. whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district

5 ZBA MINUTES 5 Cressman: no All others agreed whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance Cressman: To a certain extent it is self-created, but I m going to say no on this one. Mike Williams: Yes, it s self-created, but it doesn t necessarily preclude a variance. Whitman: I think it was self-created. MOTION by CRESSMAN SECONDED by WHITMAN Appeal Sitwell Enterprises, Inc., Area Variance for Signage be approved with the following condition: Applicant to submit an amended common sign plan for Planning staff review and approval. Building 2 wall sign allowed 154 SF; proposed 308 SF with a difference of 154 SF; variance relief 100%. Building 3 wall sign allowed 150 SF; proposed 300 SF with a difference of 300 SF; variance relief 100%.,.VOTE: Williams-yes; Martin-yes; Cressman-yes; Whitman-yes; Larson-yes. MOTION to adjourn the meeting made by MARTIN seconded by CRESSMAN. VOTE: Williams-yes; Martin-yes; Cressman-yes; Whitman-yes; Larson-yes. Respectfully submitted by, Lin Gamache ZBA Administrative Assistant