2015-02-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 10, 2015 Present: Allen Firstenberg, Chairman, Bridget Gannon, Vice Chairperson, Rachel DiGrazia, Heidi Murphy, Lisa Cobb (Attorney) and Mary Ann Loncto, Secretary Absent: Frank Barresi and Hilda Duque Others Present: Jon Adams Ross Dowd Trustee Kormornik Trustee Huber Meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. IMPERIAL PLAZA, SIGNS FOR AT&T AND GOLDEN MANG First on the agenda was the continuation of a public hearing on the request of Imperial Improvements, LLC, c/o Corbally, Gartland and Rappleyea, LLC, 35 Market Street, Poughkeepsie, NY seeking the following variances for the proposed AT&T sign to be located in Use Variances the Imperial Plaza at 1572 Route 9: (1) Article VII(C)(1) of the Zoning Code states, “Off-premises signs are prohibited” – the proposed sign will be located on a separate lot at 1574/1576 Route 9 and New Hackensack Road and (2) Article VII(C)(5) of the Zoning Code states, “Internally illuminated signs are prohibited” – the proposed sign is internally illuminated. Area Variances : (1) Article VII(K)(2)(c)(3) states, “Maximum height of the sign can only be 10 ft. and existing sign is 28 +/- ft. and (2) Article VII(J) states, multi-tenant signs can only be 36 sq. ft. and the existing sign is 36.1 sq. ft. and the continuation of a public hearing on the request of Imperial Improvements, LLC, c/o Corbally, Gartland and Rappleyea, LLC, 35 Market Street, Poughkeepsie, NY seeking the following variances for the proposed Golden Mango sign at the Area Variances Imperial Plaza, 1572 Route 9: : Article VII(K)(2)(c)(3) states, “Maximum height of the sign can only be 10 ft. and existing sign is 25 +/- ft. and (2) Article VII(J) states, Use Variances multi-tenant signs can only be 36 sq. ft. and the existing sign is 228 sq. ft. : (1) Article VII(C) (1) of the Zoning Code states, “Off-premises signs are prohibited” – the proposed sign will be located on a separate lot at 1572 Route 9 (Golden Mango is located at 1574/1576 Route 9 and (2) Article VII(C) (5) of the Zoning Code states, “Internally illuminated signs are prohibited” – the proposed sign is internally illuminated. Mr. Jon Adams Attorney for applicant and Mr. Ross Dowd, applicant were present. At this point in the meeting Mr. Firstenberg read a letter from Jon Adams dated February 5, 2015 into the record and another letter from Jon Adams dated February 10, 2015. (Both these letters are in the files of the Offices of Planning and Zoning.) Mr. Firstenberg also noted that Dutchess County Department of Planning responded to the zoning referral with a “matter of local concern with comments” comment. Dutchess County Department of Planning’s comment letters dated January 20, 2015 were both read into the record. (Both these letters are on file in the Offices of Planning and Zoning). Mr. Adams stated that the applicant is not proposing to change the physical structure that constitutes a sign according to the definition of sign in the Zoning Ordinance and also stated that according to the Code it is only when increasing the non- conformity does it “trigger” an area variance – so for the aforementioned and other reasons expressed in his letters referenced above – he feels that an interpretation is warranted. They have an existing sign and the only thing they are doing is simply changing the name within that sign of