2008-04-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD 4/8/08 Present: Lloyd Frink, Chairman, Frank Barresi, Vice Chairman, Scott Davis, George Dansereau, Attorney Jim Horan and Mary Ann Loncto, Secretary Absent: Allen Firstenberg Others Present: Jennifer Van Tuyl, Esq. Eric Neiler, Tinkleman Architects Tom Morris, Chair Planning Board Bob Feldman, BF Development Corp. Dina Klampert, KOH Architects Public hearing on the request of BF Development seeking a Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. variance from Section 151-12(H)(1)(b) of the Zoning Ordinance seeking a variance to allow increased size of the two wall signs for Walgreens - this request has been voluntarily withdrawn. WALGREENS, ROUTE 9/EAST MAIN STREET Next on the agenda was the public hearing on the request of BF Development seeking a variance from Section 151-12(H)(9)(1)(a) to be able to have a third primary sign (1' x 6') on the monument sign at the Route 9 entrance to Patriots Park for the proposed Walgreens to be built on Route 9/East Main Street. The clerk verified that she had received their notice of public hearing mailing and affidavit of publication from the Poughkeepsie Journal. Mr. Frink read into the record a letter from Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development dated April 8, 2008 – minus the note portion. A copy of this letter is on file in the Planning and Zoning offices. He then read a memorandum from Planning Board Chairman Tom Morris dated April 3, 2008 (a copy of which is on file in the Planning/Zoning offices) Mr. Frink the introduced written correspondence from Attorney Horan – consisting of three pages dated April 2, 2008 which is a legal opinion letter that deals with in majority the withdrawn request – but may have some relevance to this application. (A copy of this letter is on file in the Planning/Zoning offices). Ms. Van Tuyl stated that t his application is for a third sign that would measure 1' x 6' – it would be a panel on the already existing pylon sign. Ms. Van Tuyl stated she had copies of the color elevation that was reviewed at the Planning Board but she wanted to make it clear that the Planning Board did not approve the overall monument sign – in fact they specifically did not approve it. It conforms to code with white lettering on a darker (red) background. The main reason for the sign can be best explained by referring to the site plan – the proposed Walgreens will be located after you make the turn onto East Main Street – the applicant has proposed wall signs but because of the geographic location of the building – the third sign on Route 9 is needed. It was also stated that when the Planning Board approves the new monument sign it will be moved slightly (Ms. Van Tuyl indicated to the Board where on the site plan the sign would be). The function of the third sign would be to assist travelers as they are going North on Route 9 to direct them into Walgreens. Similarly if travelers are coming South on Route 9 – it also alerts drivers to the Walgreens. It would also facilitate traffic movements – one of the many issues that the ZBA has to consider in deciding whether or not to issue a variance is whether there is harm to the community – does the benefit to the applicant outweigh the harm to the community and the applicant would submit based on the needs for appropriate traffic circulation and the service that is performed by the sign and the size of it (it is only 6 sq. ft.) - that there really is not a harm to the community. Also the applicants have not maxed out their rights on the building signage and they are not asking for internally lit signs. Ms. Van Tuyl also stated that she realizes that the ZBA must consider granting the minimal variance possible and she feels that this sign only being 6 sq. ft. is reasonable – and even if you are counting the 6 sq. ft. sign (which when calculated for total sign are would be 12 sq.