[00:00:03]
[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA THURSDAY, February 16, 2023 – 7:00 P.M. ]
EVENING ALL.THIS IS THE TOWN OF GREENBERG ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
THE MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD APPEALS FOR THE TOWN OF GREENBERG WILL NOW COME TO ORDER.
I JUST WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT WE, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE THREE BOARD MEMBERS SITTING HERE IN YOUR PRESENT, WE DO HAVE ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER WHO IS PRESENT ON VIRTUAL
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT'S ALL RIGHT, UM, I'D LIKE TO CALL, ROLL CALL.
CHAIR FIRST AND EVE BUNTING SMITH.
AND I'D LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT WILLIAM BLAND AND CHRISTIE CONNECT ARE NOT PRESENT.
AND AS WAS HEARD HERE, I'M UNMUTED NOW.
AND AS WAS NOTED BY THE MADAM CHAIR, UH, SHAUNA KINSON IS PARTICIPATING REMOTELY IN A PUBLIC LOCATION, UM, THEREFORE MEETING THE OPEN MEETING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TOWN OF GREENBURG'S ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
AND ALSO, I JUST WANTED TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT FOR ONE OF THE CASES WE HAVE THIS EVENING, WE WOULD NOT HAVE FOUR PEOPLE, UH, AVAILABLE TO VOTE ON THAT CASE.
THAT IS CASE 2238 SS AND J SERVICE CENTER.
SO I JUST WANT YOU TO BE AWARE AND WE WILL ADDRESS IT WHEN WE COME TO THAT CASE.
THE ONLY CAVEAT I WOULD ADD THERE, IF I COULD, IS, UM, IF ANOTHER ZONING BOARD MEMBER ARRIVES, THEN WE WOULD MEET THE QUORUM.
SO THERE IS THAT POTENTIAL, BUT WE'LL SEE.
NOW GOING BACK TO WHAT I NORMALLY READ, AND THAT IS THAT, UH, WE DID HAVE EIGHT CASES SCHEDULED FOR TONIGHT'S AGENDA, HOWEVER, CASE 2205 ORALLY GAS CLA IN PLACE, AND 2215 MION WOODS, L L C HAVE BOTH REQUESTED ADJOURNMENTS OR OR GAS TO MARCH 16TH AND MION WOODS TO APRIL 20TH.
IN ADDITION CASE, 2242 HAS BEEN CLOSED FOR DECISION ONLY.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEXT ZONING MEETING WILL BE AT OUR REGULAR THURSDAY, MARCH 16TH, 7:00 PM AS USUAL, IF WE CANNOT COMPLETE HEARING ANY OF THE CASES THIS EVENING, IT WILL BE ADJOURNED TO ANOTHER MEETING TO HOPEFULLY BE COMPLETED AT THAT TIME.
ALSO, AS AS USUAL, TO SAVE TIME, WE WILL WAIVE A READING OF THE PROPERTY LOCATION AND THE RELIEF SOUGHT FOR EACH CASE.
HOWEVER, THE REPORTER WILL INSERT THIS INFORMATION IN THE RECORD.
THIS INFORMATION ALSO APPEARS IN THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING.
AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING OF TONIGHT'S CASES, THE BOARD WILL MEET IN THIS ROOM TO DISCUSS THE CASES WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT.
EVERYONE HERE IS WELCOME TO LISTEN TO OUR DELIBERATIONS, BUT THE PUBLIC WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO SPEAK OR PARTICIPATE AT THAT TIME.
AFTER OUR DELIBERATIONS, WE COME BACK TO THE, TO ANNOUNCE TO THE BOARD'S, I'M SORRY TO ANNOUNCE THE BOARD'S DECISION FOR THE FORMAL RECORD AND FOR IT TO BE BROADCAST TO THE COMMUNITY.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK TONIGHT, YOU MUST COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND OR IF YOU ARE SPEAK, APPEARING VIRTUALLY CLEARLY STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS OR YOUR PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION.
IF YOU'RE NOT A NAMED APPLICANT, PLEASE SPELL YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
WE ALSO HAVE HEARD TESTIMONY ON SOME OF THESE CASES AT PRIOR MEETINGS.
ALL PRIOR TESTIMONY IS ALREADY IN THE RECORD AND SHOULD NOT BE REPEATED.
SO WE WILL FIRST ADDRESS THE TWO CASES, 2215 AND 2205 WITH RESPECT TO ADJOURNMENTS.
AND DO I HAVE A MOTION ON CASE 20? I MOVE ON CASE 2205 OR TO GRANT THE ADJOURNMENT? DO I HAVE A SECOND OR NOT SECOND? MADAM CHAIR? YES.
YOU SHOULD ASK IF ANYONE'S HERE ON HERE ON FOR THE CASE.
HAS ANYONE EITHER IN THIS ROOM OR PRESENT ON VIRTUAL TO ADDRESS THIS CASE OR ANY INPUT IN ANY WAY? WE'RE CHECKING TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE OUT THERE AND IF ANYONE IS ON THE ZOOM THAT HAS INTEREST IN THIS CASE AND HAS A QUESTION, PLEASE, UH, USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION OR SEND ME A CHAT.
[00:05:01]
I HAVE A MOTION, I, MOTION I MOVE THAT THE CASE BE ADJOURNED TO, AND THIS IS FOR MARIAN FOR, I'M SORRY, OLIAZ 2205 TO MARCH 16TH, 2023.CHAIR VOTES? AYE, SHE RAISED HER HAND.
I THINK WE NEED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD THEN, BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE HAND WOULD APPEAR.
SHAUNA, FOR THE DURATION OF THE MEETING, IF YOU COULD JUST VERBALIZE YOUR VOTES, THAT'LL BE, UH, MUCH APPRECIATED.
BUT SHAUNA DID VERBALIZE, UH, AN I THERE, AM I UNMUTED NOW? YES.
AND THE NEXT CASE, MARION, UH, WOODS, WHICH IS 2215 L L L C, UH, HAS REQUESTED AN ADJOURNMENT TO APRIL 20TH, 2023.
ARE THERE ANY PERSONS HERE WHO INTENDED TO HAVE ANY REMARKS OR TO ADDRESS THAT MATTER? NO ONE.
I MOVE THEN THAT THE CASE BE ADJOURNED TO APRIL 20TH, 2023.
NOW TO GET TO THE FIRST CASE THAT WE WILL HEAR THIS EVENING, WHICH IS CASE 2237 TARRYTOWN ROAD PARTNERS.
I REPRESENT ANANA ANI DESIGN CONSULTANTS WE'RE THE, UH, ANI V AS IN VICTOR, I L L A N I.
WE WERE APPEARED LAST, UM, TWO MEETINGS AGO REGARDING A, UH, THIRD SIGN ON THE, UH, CANOPY OVER THE EXISTING FUEL PUMPS.
UH, THERE WAS SOME, SOME CONFUSION ON THE PRESENTED DRAWINGS ON THE COMPUTER VERSUS THE FILE DRAWING.
SO RECENTLY WE, I SUBMITTED A REVISED SET EXPLAINING THAT THE EAST ELEVATION IS THE SIGN THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO LEGALIZE AS A THIRD SIGN.
UM, WE PRESENTED THOSE DRAWINGS TO GARRETT, TO KANE.
UH, I KNOW THERE WAS ONE OTHER COMMENT AS FAR AS VERBIAGE FROM BP AS FAR AS THEIR REQUIREMENTS OF THREE SIGNS ON THREE VISIBLE SIDES OF A CANOPY.
I DID GET VERBAL, UM, CONFIRMATION OF THAT, BUT I'M STILL WAITING FOR AN EMAIL FROM THEM SO I COULD FORWARD TO GARRETT.
UM, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SENDING TO ME.
THEY PROMISED THAT I HAVEN'T GOT, I HAVEN'T RECEIVED IT YET.
UM, SO THOSE ARE THE BITS OF INFORMATION THAT WERE REQUESTED FROM THE PRIOR MEETING.
YOU HAD ASKED IF WE HAD ANY QUESTIONS.
NO, IF YOU DO, I WAS JUST ADDRESSING WHAT THE COMMENTS WERE ON THE, UM, REVIEW LETTER ISSUED BY GARRETT.
THE SET OF DRAWINGS I HAVE STILL SHOWS THE THIRD SIGN PROPOSED FROM THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CANOPY.
I'M SORRY, DID YOU HEAR? DID YOU HEAR? YEAH, YEAH, I HEARD YOU.
IT'S, THAT'S THE RECENT SET OF DRUGS THEY GAVE YOU.
RIGHT? SO MAYBE I'M SAYING, MAYBE I'M SAYING THE EAST SIDE, IT SHOULD BE THE, IF YOU LOOK HERE SHOULD BE THE SOUTH SIDE.
YOU TALK ABOUT EAST ELEVATION.
EAST ELEVATION, YEAH, I KNOW, I SAW THAT.
I DID HAVE A CHANCE TO CONDUCT ADDITIONAL RESEARCH ON THIS ONE.
SO I CAN WAIT IF THE BOARD HAS MORE QUESTIONS OR I CAN, UH, BRIEF YOU ON MY RESEARCH AT THIS TIME OR WHENEVER YOU WANT.
WELL, WE ARE JUST TRYING TO GET CLARITY, I THINK.
SO, UM, ARE YOU CLEAR ON THIS THE, THE THREE SIGNS THAT ARE PROPOSED? THE, THE, THE, THE, WELL JONATHAN, IF YOU COULD JUST CLARIFY THE TWO THAT EXIST ON WHICH SIDES THEY ARE AND THEN THE THIRD WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE THAT THIRD? YEAH, I, I WAS HOPING YOU WERE GONNA PRESENT
YEAH, I'LL, THE REASON WHY IS, 'CAUSE I'M TRYING TO ORIENT THE PROPERTY IN MY MIND THAT I'M, I MIGHT BE CALLING THE, THE EAST SIDE, THE WEST, YOU KNOW, VERSUS THE SOUTH SIDE.
SO I, I WILL ZOOM IN FOR YOU AND I'LL SHARE A SCREEN.
SO, UH, I MIGHT HAVE TO BLOW THAT UP A LITTLE BIT.
[00:10:02]
SO IF YOU SLIDE DOWN THE NOTE, UH, ON THE RIGHT SIDE SCREEN YEAH.ON THE KEEP GO SLIDING DOWN ON THE TAR TOWN ROAD.
IF YOU KEEP SLIDING DOWN A LITTLE NOTE, YOU SEE THE NOTE THAT STATES, WHICH SIDE THAT IS RIGHT THERE PER THIRD, PROPOSED THIRD BP SIGN IS BEING PROPOSED ON EAST ELEVATION OF CANOPY POINTED ON THAT SIDE THAT FACES THE CAR WASH.
SO THIS IS PROPOSED LOCATION, CORRECT.
AND THEN AN EXISTING, EXISTING THERE AND EXISTING ON THE OTHER SIDE RIGHT THERE SIDE TWO AND SIDE ONE IT SAYS APPROVED ALREADY INSTALLED.
WELL, MY QUESTION IS, I, I'M NOT SURE WHY THE NEED FOR THAT THIRD SIGN ON THAT, UH, I GUESS EAST ELEVATION, IT'S THE EAST ELEVATION.
EAST ELEVATION IS, IS NECESSARY BECAUSE YOU ALSO HAVE THE SIGNAGE THAT POINTS OUT THE GAS PRICES.
AND I GO BY THAT LOCATION AT LEAST TWICE A DAY, IF NOT MORE.
AND CERTAINLY AT NIGHT IT'S VERY, VERY VISIBLE AND THE STATION ITSELF IS ALWAYS, UH, VERY ACTIVE.
AND IN THE DAYTIME YOU STILL HAVE THE SIGNAGE AND EVEN THE, UM, COLORS THAT THEY HAVE CHOSEN FOR THE CANOPY ARE VERY INVITING AND VERY, UH, AND, AND STAND OUT.
THERE'S NOTHING TO INHIBIT IN ANY WAY.
UH, THE VIEW OF THE STATION AND THE FACT OF WHAT IT IS AND WHERE IT'S LOCATED AND I, I JUST DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR IT PERSONALLY.
YEAH, I WOULD'VE TO CONCUR BECAUSE, UM, I ALSO GO BY THAT STATION, UH, FREQUENTLY.
AND YOU WERE ALLOWED TWO SIGNS ON THE CANOPY PREVIOUSLY YOU DECIDED TO PUT ONE ON THE WEST SIDE AND ONE ONE ON THE SOUTH SIDE MM-HMM.
SO I WOULDN'T, I WAS KIND OF CONFUSED INITIALLY AND NOW I I SEE THAT YOU ACTUALLY PUT IT ON THE WEST SIDE AND THE SOUTH SIDE, WHEREAS YOU COULD HAVE PUT IT VERY EASILY ON THE EAST SIDE AND THE WEST SIDE WHERE IT WOULD BE VERY, VERY VISIBLE FROM THE MAJOR, UH, FLOW OF TRAFFIC ON ONE 19 TO PUT IT ON THE SOUTH SIDE WOULD ONLY ALLOW YOU TO SEE IT IF YOU WERE COMING UP FROM THAT STREET THAT IS, UM, PERPENDICULAR TO, UH, ONE 19.
IT'S NOT OUTSIDE AVENUE, BUT ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE BY THE CAR DEALERSHIP.
WELL, THERE'S TWO, THERE'S TWO CONDITIONS, UM, THAT CREATED THIS NUMBER ONE, THE ONE ON THE PREVIOUSLY, THE ONE ON THE, WHERE I THINK YOU SHOULD JUST CALL ON THE SOUTH SIDE, THE FRONTAGE, THE FRONT STREET ON THAT FACES PERPENDICULAR THE TARRYTOWN ROAD.
THE, THAT ONE IS THE ACTUAL FRONTAGE OF THE STORE.
SO AT THE TIME THERE WAS A CONFUSION.
THAT'S WHY THE FIRST SET OF DRAWINGS HAD THAT ONE BEING THE ONE TO TRY TO GET AS A THIRD SIGN.
BUT BECAUSE IT'S ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, THEY WANT TO KEEP THE ONE ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND THE WEST SIDE, THE ONE ON THE EAST.
THEN THEY CHOSE TO MAKE THE ONE ON THE EAST SIDE IS ONE APPLYING FOR THE THIRD, UH, A THIRD SIGN.
THE OTHER CONDITION THAT GOES WITH THIS IS THAT BP REQUIRED THEM TO HAVE, AND IT, AND WHEN I SAY SIGNAGE, IT'S VERY LOOSE BECAUSE IT'S A SYMBOL.
THERE'S NO BP, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO NUMBERS, THERE'S NO LETTERS.
IT'S JUST A, IT'S JUST A LOGO.
SO THEY'RE REQUIRED ON THREE SIDES OF THEIRS CANOPY.
UM, WHICH I GOT VERBAL CONFIRMATION AND HAVEN'T GOTTEN WRITTEN CONFIRMATION.
I'M TRYING TO GET WRITTEN CONFIRMATION BECAUSE WHEN THEY DESIGNED CANOPIES OF THIS STRUCTURE THAT FACE THE STREET ON THREE SIDES, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO PUT THE SYMBOL ON THREE SIDES.
SO IF THERE WASN'T A STREET, A VISIBLE STREET STREET WHEN YOU WERE, YOU WERE COMING UP TALL TOWN ROAD, WHEN THE SIDE OF THE CANOPY IS VISIBLE, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO PUT THE, THE SYMBOL THERE.
THAT'S WHY THERE'S NO SYMBOL FACING THE STORE.
'CAUSE IT'S NOT VISIBLE FROM ANY ANGLE.
SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY THEY, THEY DID IT.
UM, OBVIOUSLY THEY DIDN'T, IT'S THERE.
SO THEY DIDN'T CONVERSE WITH THEY, I, I THINK THEY DIDN'T THINK IT'S A, AS IT'S JUST SYMBOL.
IT'S NOT A SIGN, IT'S NOT A VP SIGN.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION? UM, I'M LOOKING AT A PHOTOGRAPH THAT SHOWS ON THE CORNER A VERY LARGE SIGN THAT I ASSUME GIVES THE PRICING.
IT'S VERY TALL, VERY LARGE SIGN.
DOES THAT EXIST OR IS THAT A DRAFT OF WHAT'S GOING THERE? THAT EXISTED, ALWAYS EXISTED WITH THE GAS STATION.
IT JUST HAS BEEN REFURBISHED TO REPRESENT BP.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A MONUMENT SIGN.
WE DIDN'T APPLY FOR THAT SIGN.
IT WAS ALWAYS BEEN A MONUMENT SIGN.
I JUST WANTED, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW MANY SIGNS THERE ARE.
[00:15:01]
RESEARCH? SURE.SO, AND, AND TO THE APPLICANT, I'M SORRY, I JUST COMPLETED THE RESEARCH TODAY SO I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO SHARE THIS WITH YOU.
PRIOR, BESIDES THIS GAS STATION, UH, WE IDENTIFIED 13 OTHER GAS STATIONS IN THE TOWN.
UH, 10 OF THOSE GAS STATIONS, NINE OF THOSE 10, UH, HAVE 2, 2 2 WALL SIGNS ON THE, ON THE, THE CANOPY.
AND ONE OF THEM HAS ONE, THE OTHER THREE THAT DO HAVE THREE, UH, WALL SIGNS ON THE CANOPY.
WE ACTUALLY LOOKED INTO IT FURTHER AND IT TURNS OUT THEY HAD NEVER RECEIVED VARIANCES FOR THE THIRD, UM, CANOPY SIGN.
SO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT'S ACTUALLY GONNA SEND THEM A NOTICE OF VIOLATION, UH, THIS WEEK.
UM, SO AS IT TURNS OUT, THERE ARE ACTUALLY NO LEGALLY, UH, EXISTING CANOPIES OF THIS NATURE THAT HAVE THAT THIRD SIGN.
SO, UM, IF APPROVED, THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST OF ITS KIND.
UM, SO WE HADN'T HAD A CHANCE TO PULL ALL THAT TOGETHER, UM, WHICH I INTENDED TO GET THAT SOONER, BUT WE DID, AND THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO RELAY TO THE BOARD.
WELL, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS AT THIS POINT.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE OR ON ZOOM WHO WANTED TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER? IF ANYONE ON ZOOM WISHES TO SPEAK, PLEASE USE THE CHAT OR SEND ME A, UH, OR USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK.
WELL, I THINK YOU'VE MADE YOURSELF CLEAR AS TO WHAT, UH, BP IS LOOKING FOR, BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT WE HAVE TO GRANT THAT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE WHAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE ALTERNATIVES ARE.
SO, BECAUSE THERE CANOPY NOT GETTING RESTRUCTURED, IS IT JUST TAKING OFF THE, THE, YOU KNOW WHAT THE, I, I COULD SPEAK TO GARRETT AFTER YOUR DECISION ON, ON HOW WE RESOLVED THE UH, ALRIGHT.
UM, I AM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NEXT I'LL, I'LL STAND HERE AND OKAY.
NO, BUT I JUST HAVE TO AND THAT'S FINE.
I KNOW THAT ONE DECISION WILL BE MADE, BUT I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS JUST BECAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
I'M ALL, I'M ALL SET, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS DO I HAVE TO LEAVE FOR THE QUESTIONS AS FAR AS THE INFORMATION? DO I HAVE TO LEAVE FOR THE QUESTIONS OR CAN I JUST NOT TALK WITH THE, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU'RE NOT GONNA SAY ANYTHING? I WON'T AND WE'RE NOT GONNA REALLY HAVE A HEARING TONIGHT.
HE'S JUST ASKING A PROCEDURAL QUESTION.
IT'S A PROCEDURAL BECAUSE YOU HAD THE CHANCE TO REVIEW IT.
I DUNNO IF YOU HAD THE INITIAL WELL, LET ME FIRST YEAH.
FIRST AND WHAT, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UH, THIS IS CASE 2238 S AND J SERVICE CENTER AT 2 45 SOUTH CENTRAL AVENUE HARTSDALE.
AND YOUR QUESTIONS ARE? WELL, I, I'M JONATHAN ANI, AGAIN FROM AN NZI, ANI DESIGN CONSULTANTS, V I L L A N I.
UM, SO I JUST, JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED AS PER THE REVIEW, THE REVIEW LETTER ISSUED BY GARRETT THAT, UM, THE NEXT MEETING, I DON'T, THERE'S NOTHING IN BETWEEN NOW AND THEN THAT I'LL HAVE TO ADDRESS, UM, AS FAR AS INFORMATION OR ANY ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS YOU NEED, OR, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE NEXT MEETING I'M NOT ROLLING OVER, YOU KNOW, WE CAN POSSIBLY MAKE A DECISION NEXT MEETING.
WELL, IF WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM, WE CAN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING WITH THE CASE THIS EVENING, TO BE HONEST.
OH, SO THERE WAS NO, NO REVIEW OR ANYTHING THAT COULD BE, NO.
SO THEN, UH, WE NO COMMENTS OR ANYTHING TONIGHT? RIGHT.
AND THE NEXT CASE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS CASE 2240 KIMONA HANSON, 1 28 FLORENCE AVENUE, WHITE PLAINS.
MY NAME IS KEITH BUDINSKI AND I'M THE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT'S.
UH, THE APPLICANTS ARE KIMONA HANSSEN, HER HUSBAND PASCAL, AND THEIR THREE CHILDREN, UM, KIMONA AND HER HUSBAND ARE HOPEFULLY ON THEIR WAY HERE.
I THINK THEY WERE JUST GETTING THE KIDS SITUATED.
UM, AND THEY SHOULD BE HERE SHORTLY.
AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE RESIDENTIAL STRICT IN WHICH ONLY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE PERMITTED.
BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, THIS PROPERTY WAS PREVIOUSLY ZONED UR IN WHICH TWO FAMILY HOMES WERE PERMITTED.
AND THE 2018, THE TOWN BOARD CHANGED THE ZONING TO R FIVE L T F IN WHICH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OWNING ARE PERMITTED.
AND, UH, ONLY EXISTING TWO FAMILY HOMES ARE PERMITTED.
NEW TWO FAMILY HOMES ARE PROHIBITED IN 2021, HURRICANE IDA UNFORTUNATELY DESTROYED THE HANSSEN RESIDENCE.
[00:20:01]
UH, THEY WERE DISPLACED.THE HOME WAS CONDEMNED AND REMOVED.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT.
UM, WE SUBMITTED A DETAILED AFFIDAVIT FROM MS. HANSSEN INCLUDING A DETAILED FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AS CONFIRMED BY HER CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, INDICATING THAT THE HANSON FAMILY CANNOT AFFORD TO SELL THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THERE'S AN EXISTING MORTGAGE ROUGHLY IN THE AMOUNT OF $300,000.
AND ACCORDING TO THE BROKER PRICE OPINION THAT WE SUBMITTED, THE VACANT LOT IS ONLY WORTH ABOUT 190,000.
SO THE PROPERTY'S UNDERWATER, NO PUN INTENDED.
UM, THE HANSON FAMILY ALSO CANNOT AFFORD TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME BECAUSE THEY'VE INCURRED A LOT OF DEBT AND WE SUBMITTED A DETAILED BALANCE SHEET.
UM, THERE JUST WOULDN'T, THERE JUST WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH INCOME TO SUPPORT THE DEBT SERVICE, INCLUDING THE MORTGAGE AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, EVEN WITH THE A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS HOME EQUITY LOAN THAT SHE'S GOING TO USE FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
HOWEVER, IF SHE CAN BUILD A TWO-FAMILY HOME, THAT WOULD ALLOW HER TO GET SOME ADDITIONAL INCOME, ACCORDING TO THE BROKER, THAT WOULD BRING IN ABOUT $4,500 A MONTH.
UM, THE ADDITIONAL, UM, OCCUPANT WOULD ALSO PAY A PORTION OF THE UTILITIES FOR THE PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD BE HELPFUL, AND IT WOULD GIVE THE HANSSEN FAMILY ENOUGH INCOME TO, UM, ALLOW THEM TO RECONSTRUCT THEIR HOME.
AND THEN THEY VERY MUCH WANNA STAY IN GREENBURG.
UM, I WANNA NOTE, UH, THAT THE HOME THAT'S PROPOSED IS DIMENSIONALLY CONFORMING.
THERE ARE NO AREA VARIANCES THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED.
UH, IT'S ONLY THE USE VARIANCE.
AND THERE ARE FOUR OFF STREET PARKING SPACES, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE TOWN BOARD CHANGED THE ZONING IS BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT ON-STREET PARKING.
SO I WANT TO ASSURE THE BOARD THAT THERE ARE FOUR OFF STREET PARKING SPACES, WHICH MEETS THE CODE REQUIREMENT FOR A TWO-FAMILY HOME.
WE SUBMITTED NUMEROUS LETTERS AND SUPPORT FROM MANY OF MS. HANSEN'S NEIGHBORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND A LIST OF ABOUT 15 EXISTING TWO FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THIS TWO FAMILY HOME IS NOT GONNA BE OUT OF KEEPING WITH WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.
UM, AND IN FACT, I BELIEVE THERE'S A SENIOR HOUSING COMPLEX THAT, THAT'S BEING BUILT.
IT'S IN A SENIOR FAMILY, UM, DISTRICT, BUT IT'S NEARBY.
SO THE TWO FAMILY IS GONNA BE IN KEEPING WITH WHAT'S THERE CURRENTLY.
UM, SO, UM, UH, WE ALSO SUBMITTED A LETTER IN SUPPORT FROM, UH, THE TOWN SUPERVISOR, WHICH IS SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL, UM, BUT THE TOWN ACKNOWLEDGES THIS UNIQUE SITUATION AND, UM, SYMPATHIZES WITH THE HANSON FAMILY.
AND, UM, ACCORDING TO MR. FINER, UH, THE TOWN IS BEING COOPERATIVE AND DOING WHAT IT CAN IN ORDER TO, UM, HOPEFULLY, UM, ALLOW THE HANSON FAMILY TO REMAIN IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
UM, UH, DID YOU, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO INTRODUCE YOU QUICKLY? YES, PLEASE.
UM, AND, UM, I HAVE MS. HANSON WITH ME TONIGHT IS, IS PASCAL HERE? SHE'S OKAY.
AND, AND, AND HER HUSBAND PASCAL'S HERE AS WELL.
UM, WE WANT TO THANK THE BOARD FOR ITS CONSIDERATION.
UM, LIKE I SAID, WE'VE SUBMITTED DETAILED INFORMATION SINCE THE LAST MEETING.
UM, I'M CONFIDENT THAT IT MEETS, UM, THE, UH, VERY STRINGENT USE VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS TO, UH, ESPECIALLY TO THE UNIQUE, UM, UH, UH, CIRCUMSTANCES HERE.
AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE.
WELL, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
YOU DID PRESENT, UH, VERY, UH, DETAILED AND WELL-DRESSED, UH, PRESENTATION IN WRITING.
SO, UM, I ALSO HAVE TO ADMIT THAT I REVIEWED ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVED, AND I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS EITHER.
SO IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WANT, WANTED TO MAKE ANY REMARKS ON THIS CASE THAT WE I SHOULD HEAR IT.
I SEE NO HANDS RAISED ON THE ZOOM, SO I WOULD SAY NO.
AND THE NEXT CASE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS CASE 2241 BJ'S CROSSWORD.
CROSSWORD
HI, UH, MY NAME IS ALICE MILANO.
I AM FROM SCIENCE STAR WHO IS REPRESENTING HOMECOMING SIGNS FOR BJ'S.
UM, WE WERE AT THE MEETING ON JANUARY 19TH
[00:25:01]
AND GOT ADJOURNED TO THIS EVENING.THE BOARD HAD SOME, UM, ISSUES THAT THEY WANTED US TO ADDRESS WITH NEW DRAWINGS AND SUCH.
UM, SO THAT PACKET WAS PROVIDED TO GARRETT.
SO WHEN YOU'RE READY, IF YOU COULD PLEASE WALK US THROUGH WHAT THE CHANGES WERE AND IF THERE'S ANY VISUALS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO GO TO.
THE PLANS HANDY AND I HAVE ALL THE DOCUMENTATION, BUT RIGHT NOW I HAVE, UM, THE, THE PLAN PACKAGE THAT YOU SUBMITTED.
SO IF YOU COULD JUST STOP IT WHERE IT SAYS, OVERHAUL OF STACK LETTER SET 12.3.
SO ORIGINALLY ON THE ORIGINAL VARIANCE APPLICATION, IT'S DATED THAT THE STACKED OF WALL SIGN HEIGHT WAS 16 FOOT, THAT IT WAS INCORRECT.
UM, WE SHRUNK THE SPACING DOWN AS REQUESTED BY THE BOARD DOWN TO 18 INCHES FROM 34 AND A QUARTER INCHES.
UM, SO NOW THE OVERALL STACKED LETTER, UH, LETTER SET HEIGHT IS 12 FOOT THREE.
AND IF YOU WANNA, UH, CONTINUE GOING DOWN, PLEASE, GARRETT.
SO IT'S, IT, YOU KEEP COMING DOWN.
UM, THE NEXT THING, YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT ONE PLEASE, GARRETT.
THEY ALSO WANTED TO SEE, UM, HOW THE SIGNAGE WOULD LOOK IF WE WERE TO CONFORM TO THEIR CODE AS A SIX FOOT STACKED, UM, HEIGHT.
THIS IS WHAT, UM, THE SIGN WOULD LOOK LIKE IF WE COMPLIED, UM, WITH THE CODE.
UM, UM, YES, GO DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
THESE ARE ALSO SOME SIGNS IN THE SAME SHOPPING CENTER, UM, THAT, UM, ARE, ARE JUST AS, NOT AS BIG, BUT THEY FIT THEIR STOREFRONT, SO WE WANT TO SHOW IT IN COMPARISON TO OURS.
AND THOSE STORES DO HAVE BETTER VISIBILITY FROM THE ROAD.
UM, THE BJ'S A STEP BACK AT I THINK APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET.
AND I BELIEVE THE D S W IS ONLY SET BACK LIKE 50 FEET FROM THE ROADWAY.
AND THEY HAVE A, YOU KNOW, AN EIGHT FOOT OVERALL STACK TYPE OF THAT SIDE.
AND BECAUSE OF THE ROAD CURVES, UM, THEY ALSO WANTED TO SEE SOME OTHER BJ'S, UM, PLANS AND WHAT THEIR SIGNS WOULD LOOK LIKE ON THE STOREFRONT.
SO THAT WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE.
DO YOU HAVE UP, OKAY, SO THIS IS ONE THAT'S IN, UM, FOR CHARLOTTES FLORIDA.
UM, IF YOU SCROLL DOWN, THERE IS A PICTURE, AN ACTUAL PICTURE OF ON THE FACADE.
OH, YOU KNOW WHAT I PUT IN THERE? I THINK THE PICTURES ARE SEPARATE.
SO THE PICTURES MAY BE SEPARATE AND IF THE OTHER SPEAKER COULD JUST, UH, QUICKLY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES FOR THE STENOGRAPHER.
WE ARE THEIR NATIONAL SIGNED CONTRACTOR FOR PJ'S WHOLESALE CLUB.
SO THIS IS, IS THIS THE SAME LOCATION? THIS ONE'S LADY LAKE, FLORIDA CITY.
SO IF YOU, TERRY, YOU ACTUALLY MAYBE WANNA STEP IN AND JUST, YOU MAY BE, WILL EXPLAIN THIS BETTER THAN I YEAH, SO THIS IS THEIR FRONT ELEVATION.
THIS IS THE STANDARD APPLICATION FOR THEIR SIGNS.
UM, PREDOMINANTLY WHAT YOU'LL SEE ON EVERY LOCATION, UM, WILL BE THE STACKED SIGN, JUST LIKE WE'RE REPRESENTING FOR THE WHITE PLAINS GREENBERG LOCATION.
AND THEN THIS IS JUST DESIGN CRITERIA OF THOSE PARTICULAR SIGNS, HOW THEY'RE MANUFACTURED.
I THINK WE'VE INCLUDED FOUR LOCATIONS.
THERE SHOULD BE ONE FOR NOBLESVILLE.
ONE, I APOLOGIZE, WE DIDN'T HAVE COLORED RENDERINGS.
THIS IS THE SCALED ELEVATION IN THE SAME APPLICATION.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THESE IN GENERAL, THESE STACKED HEIGHTS ARE? UM, IF YOU'LL ZOOM IN ON THAT SOUTH ELEVATION DOWN THERE, I BELIEVE SHE HAS THE DIMENSIONS CALLED OUT FOR US.
AND THE LOWER PORTION OF THAT PAGE,
[00:30:05]
BOTTOM LEFT PROBABLY.SO THAT, THAT IS THE SAME SIGN THAT WE'RE REPRESENTING FOR GREENBERG.
UM, WITH THE TWO FOOT 10, THIS ONE OBVIOUSLY HAS THE 34 AND A QUARTER INCH DIMENSION BETWEEN THE BJ'S AND WHOLESALE CLUB.
AGAIN, WE ARE REPRESENTING DOING AN 18 INCH DIFFERENCE ON THE FRONT OF GREENBERG.
UH, THIS ONE I WAS GONNA, I, I COULDN'T TELL WHAT THE ACTUAL OVERHAUL, OVERALL HEIGHT DIMENSION IS, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S ON THE GREENBERG PACKAGE.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? I NOTICED, UM, AND I'VE SEEN OTHER BJ SIGNS ACTUALLY MYSELF, AND I SEE THAT IN THE RENDERINGS YOU'VE GIVEN US IN THE PACKAGE, IT APPEARS THAT THE BJS, THE LETTERS ARE WHITE AGAINST A RED BACKGROUND SOMETIMES AND THEN OTHER TIMES THE REVERSE.
IS THAT CORRECT? AND WHAT, WHAT WOULD YOU BE PROPOSING FOR THE GREENBERG SITE? THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE A RED BACKGROUND PANEL WITH THE WHITE LETTERS APPLIED TO THAT.
UM, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE REPRESENTING FOR GREENBERG.
UH, THE LETTER SETS THEMSELVES, I BELIEVE WE'RE FIVE FOOT EIGHT.
THE PANEL IS SEVEN FOOT, THE LETTERS ARE FIVE FOOT EIGHT OVERALL, UH, STACK PIPE WOULD BE 12 FOOT THREE WITH THE BJ'S AND THE WHOLESALE CLUB.
I KNOW I HAD SEEN IT SOMEWHERE IN THIS PACKAGE, BUT, UM, THE, THERE'S THE HEIGHT OF THE RED RECTANGLE THAT THE BJ'S LETTERS ARE ON, AND THEN THERE'S THE HEIGHT TO THE, OH, WAIT A MINUTE.
THERE'S THE HEIGHT TO THE, UH, TOP OF THE APOSTROPHE CHECK MARK, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT IS, MAKES IT A LITTLE TALLER.
SO THAT SIGN IS A TOTAL OF EIGHT FOOT WITH THE END OF THE CHECK MARK.
THEN THE 18 INCHES BETWEEN THE TWO SIGNS, THE TWO FOOT 10 OF THE WHOLESALE CLUB GIVES YOU THE 12 FOOT THREE DIMENSION.
UM, IS, WAS THIS A, A REDUCTION FROM THE PREVIOUS SUBMISSION LAST TIME? I BELIEVE THE ONLY CHANGE IN THE PREVIOUS SUBMISSION WAS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN BJ'S AND WHOLESALE CLUB ORIGINALLY PRESENTED AT 34 AND A QUARTER INCHES BETWEEN THE TWO SIGNS.
SO THE STACK HEIGHT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED AT 16 AS A TOTAL, AND NOW IT'S, I BELIEVE THAT'S IN REDUCED TO 12 FOOT THREE INCHES.
THE 16 FOOT, UM, THAT WAS ON THE, THE LAST DENIAL WAS INCORRECT.
IT WAS ACTUALLY ORIGINALLY BEFORE WE, UM, SHRUNK THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE CABINET AND WHOLESALE CLUB.
IT WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE 13 SIX.
SO ARE YOU INDICATING THAT YOU, YOU DID REDUCE, BUT YOU WENT FROM 13 SIX, UH, AND YOU REDUCED THE VARIANCE TO 12 THREE? THAT'S CORRECT.
THANKS FOR FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
BUT THE, THE BJ'S REMAIN AT SEVEN FEET, CORRECT? WELL, THE OVERALL HEIGHT FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE CABINET TO THE TOP OF THE CHECK MARK IS EIGHT FEET.
SEVEN FEET IS JUST THE SIZE OF THE CABINET FROM THE TOP TO THE BOTTOM, NOT INCLUDING THE CHECK MARK.
CAN I ASK WHY YOU MADE NO, UM, CHANGES TO THAT? I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE TRYING TO FILL UP THE VERY LARGE SPACE, UM, AND THE OTHER, THE OTHER ONES IN THE SHOPPING CENTER HAVE SMALLER SPACES, WHICH ARE PROBABLY PERCENTAGE FULL, MIGHT BE THE SAME AS YOURS IS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, BUT YOU'RE,
[00:35:01]
BUT BECAUSE YOUR ACTUAL CANVAS, IF YOU WOULD, IS SO HUGE.UM, YOU'RE, YOU'RE DOING THAT AND I UNDERSTAND THE ONE THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S THAT'S VERY SMALL.
I'M JUST WONDERING WHY YOU DIDN'T TRY SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE THAT JUST IS LESS THAN AN EIGHT FOOT CABINET, AS YOU CALL IT.
WE WERE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE THE SPACE WITH THE GIVEN, AS YOU CALL IT, CANVAS.
IF WE GO DOWN A SIZE, THEN IT WILL BE JUST THE TINY SPACE, JUST LIKE THE ONE WE HAD REPRESENTED PREVIOUSLY.
SO THE ONLY THING THAT WAS ASKED IN THE LAST MEETING WAS TO CHANGE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN BJ'S AND WHOLESALE CLUB IN ORDER TO KEEP BJ'S AT THEIR BRAND STANDARD.
SO, I MEAN, THEY DON'T DO ANYTHING BETWEEN EIGHT FEET AND FIVE FEET? NO, MA'AM.
UH, THE REPRESENTATION OF THE OTHER LOCATIONS, IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR ELEVATIONS, THAT IS THEIR STANDARD BUILDING, UH, FOOTPRINT.
AND THAT'S THE REASON THEY ONLY HAVE THE ONE SIZE WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING FOR NEW LOCATIONS.
THIS ONE HAVING A LARGER FOOTPRINT ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING ALLOWED THEM TO KEEP THEIR STANDARD SIZING AND, AND THEY, THEY DON'T CONSIDER SEVEN FEET OR DO YOU KNOW WHY, UM, THE DIFFERENCE OF ONE FOOT FROM THE CHANGE OF THE PANEL AND THE LETTER SET WOULD NOT MAKE THAT BIG OF A DIFFERENCE? SO THE PANEL ITSELF ON THIS ONE IS SEVEN FOOT, SO YOU'RE ONLY LOSING THE 12 INCH DISTANCE ON THE CHECK MARK.
JUST, JUST ONE OBS ONE PERSONAL OBSERVATION, THE CHECK IS WHITE AGAINST WHITE.
SO I THINK THAT, UM, THAT ONE FOOT IS SORT OF INFLATED, IF YOU WILL.
TO ME, IT REALLY IS A, A SEVEN FOOT ASK, UM, IF THE CHECK WAS A DIFFERENT COLOR, I SUPPOSE, BUT IT'S JUST A PERSONAL OBSERVATION.
I THINK WE'RE, THE OTHER COMPLICATION ALSO IS ALL THE OTHER SIGNAGE, THE FONT IS IN A COLOR.
SO IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE FONT AT, OF THE B AND THE JS, IT'S ACTUALLY FIVE EIGHT.
SO HAVING IT WHITE ON RED ACTUALLY HAS TO MAKE IT LARGER AND COMPLICATES IT FURTHER.
BUT I THOUGHT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO RED LETTERS.
DID I MISTAKE THAT? I APOLOGIZE.
I DO NOT REMEMBER THAT QUESTION BEING ASKED IN THE LAST MEETING.
OH, I, I, IF I MISSED THAT, I APOLOGIZE.
OH, YOU ASKED IF THERE WERE AN ALTERNATIVE, AND THIS IS THERE, THERE IS NOT A CURRENT ALTERNATIVE.
IF THAT IS A REQUEST I CAN TAKE BACK TO BJ'S.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE THE COLOR SCHEME THAT'S ON THE, ON, ON THE, THE SCREEN HERE WITH THE WHITE AND THE RED, JUST THAT, THAT IS WHAT IS PROPOSED.
AND THIS IS THEIR TRADEMARKED IMAGE.
SO THE ONLY CHANGE THAT WAS MADE WAS A FOOT AND A HALF CUT BETWEEN THE TWO SIGNS? NO, NEITHER OF THE SIGNS THEMSELVES WERE ALTERED IN ANY WAY.
SO IF WE WERE TO ASK FOR THE SIGN THE FONT SIZE TO BE REDUCED AND THE RED BACKGROUND TO BE REDUCED, YOU'RE SAYING FOR SUPPLY SIDE ISSUES THAT YOU CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE STANDARD SIDES AND THAT WHAT THEY MAKE, UM, I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE RESPONSE.
THE IMAGE THAT'S PRESENTED IS THEIR TRADEMARK IMAGE.
SO THIS IS WHAT THEIR ENTIRE FOOTPRINT IS BASED ON.
NOT THAT THEY WOULD NOT CONSIDER CHANGING IT TO SOMETHING ELSE FOR THE ASK, BUT THIS IS THEIR TRADEMARK IMAGE AND THAT'S THE REASON IT WAS PRESENTED.
NO, SO I, I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT THIS IS THEIR TRADEMARK IMAGE, BUT YOU CAN DO A TRADEMARK, LIKE THEY COULD REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE WHOLE THING BY 10%.
RIGHT? SO, OR THEY COULD REDUCE THE WHOLE THING BY THE SIZE OF 20% IN, IN COORDINATION WITH ALL THE OTHER ELEMENTS.
AND THAT WOULD STILL BE THEIR LOGO AND THEIR BRAND.
SO, UH, IF WE WERE TO ASK THAT, IS THERE A REASON WHY THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT? WE'RE NOT ASKING THEM TO CHANGE THEIR LOGO OR TO CHANGE THEIR BRANDING, BUT TO CHANGE POTENTIALLY THE SIZE OF THE WHOLE THING? I BELIEVE IT'S A FAIR ASK AND I CAN TAKE THAT BACK TO BJ'S IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO DO.
[00:40:01]
OKAY.UM, COULD I BRING UP ONE OTHER POINT THAT THE SIGNAGE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING IS SMALLER IN SQUARE FOOTAGE COMPARED TO THE OTHER FOUR, UM, SIGNS THAT ARE PRESENTED IN THE PACKAGE.
UM, I WOULD JUST WANT TO COMMENT THAT, UM, I'M LOOKING AT THE TWO IMAGES THAT YOU SHOW WHERE WHAT THE BJ'S WHOLESALE CLUB SIGN WOULD LOOK LIKE IF IT MET THE TOWN OF GREENBERG'S, UH, ZONING CODE.
AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE IT WITH WHAT YOU ARE CURRENTLY ASKING FOR.
I IMMEDIATELY SEE THAT WHAT YOU COULD, WHAT IS ALLOWED BY THE TOWN OF GREENBURG IS WHOLLY AND SOLELY LOST IN THE CANVAS OF WHAT'S THERE ON, AT THE FACE OF THE STORE, ON THE FACADE OF THE STORE.
BUT THAT WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING SEEMS TOO BIG.
AND THAT'S WHY I THINK DIANE WAS ASKING IF THERE WAS A WAY THAT YOU COULD KEEP ALL THE STANDARD PROPORTIONS OF THE SIGN THE SAME AND JUST REDUCE IT BY 10%.
AND I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY MAKE IT FIT IN THE CANVAS WITHOUT APPEARING TO BE SO OVERWHELMING.
SO I WOULD ACTUALLY WANT YOU TO ASK BJ'S IF THERE ISN'T SOMETHING ELSE THAT THEY CAN DO AS OPPOSED TO WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING, I CAN TAKE THAT BACK TO THEM, UM, JUST, UH, IN REFERENCE 10%.
WE'LL SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IN COMPARISON TO THE OTHER BRANDS AND THEIR CANVAS AS WELL.
I I I I WOULD SUGGEST THAT, UM, YOU'RE DOING IT ON A, A COMPUTER.
I, I WOULD SUGGEST DO RUN A COUPLE OF SCENARIOS TO PRODUCTION.
CAN I, UM, JUST ASK THE BOARD IF THERE ARE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OTHER STORES THAT ARE IN THE COMPLEX, UM, YES.
ALSO HAS AN EIGHT FOOT SNACKED.
YOU WOULDN'T, YOU WOULDN'T WANNA RELY ON THAT? WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU WOULDN'T WANNA RELY ON IT? WE MEASURED THEM OURSELVES.
UH, SORRY IF, IF THE, UH, THE UPDATED, THE NEW SPEAKER COULD PLEASE IDENTIFY THEMSELVES.
GINA FROM SIDE STAR AND GINA, YOUR LAST NAME PLEASE.
UM, I KNOW WE DID MENTION IT, BUT IT KIND OF WAS, UH, JUST BRIEFLY BYPASSED.
SO I WANTED TO JUST FIND OUT IF YOU GUYS ARE TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, THE, THE SIZE OF THOSE SIGNS THAT ARE IN THE SAME SHOPPING CENTER WITH VERY GOOD VISIBILITY, UM, COMPARED TO THE SIZE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING WITH A MUCH LARGER BUILDING, A MUCH LARGER CANVAS.
AND THERE'S ACTUALLY NO VISIBILITY FROM THE ROAD WHATSOEVER.
THERE, THERE IS, I, I DISAGREE WITH YOU.
I, I SHOP AT DJS NOW AT LEAST FOUR TIMES A WEEK.
I KNOW, BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO, AND I'VE NEVER SHOPPED AT A BIG BOX STORE BEFORE AND THERE'S SEVERAL AROUND HERE, BUT I'VE NEVER GONE IN ONE OTHER THAN TO LOOK FOR A CHILD AND RUN OUT.
UH, AND I'M SAYING THAT TO SAY THAT THEY HAVE REALLY BROUGHT SOMETHING TO GREENBURG AND THE SHOPPING CENTER THERE, AS WELL AS THE CHANGES THAT WE'VE HAD OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS WITH RETAIL STORES GOING OUT OF BUSINESS.
AND BJ'S IS DOING EXTREMELY WELL, I THINK, AND IS SERVING THE PUBLIC, UH, EXTREMELY WELL.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO PLEASE THEM.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, GREENBERG DOES HAVE SOME STRINGENT RULES WITH RESPECT TO SIGNAGE, AND WE DON'T WANT THEM TO GET OUT OF HAND UNNECESSARILY.
WHEN KMART WAS THERE, I THINK THEY PRESENTED US WITH THREE DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES.
AND WHAT THEY ENDED UP WITH WAS STILL THEIR LOGO, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THEY MAY HAVE HAD, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THE INDUSTRY, BUT IT DIDN'T AFFECT THEIR ABILITY TO ADVERTISE AND OR THE PROPERTY TO BE LOCATED.
AND I JUST WANTED, I JUST WANNA SAY THAT.
I WOULD JUST SAY THAT YOU WERE REQUESTED TO REDUCE THE SPACING FROM THE 40, 34 INCHES TO THE 18 INCHES.
UM, AND THAT WAS THE ONLY CHANGE THAT WAS REQUESTED OF US.
AND NOW THEY'RE COMING BACK WITH, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER ASK.
SO, WELL, LOOKING AT IT, THE WAY YOU'VE PRESENTED IT, WE WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO FALL WITHIN THE CODE IF IT WOULD, THAT WAY WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY DIFFICULTY.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO, SO YOU SEE THE PHOTOS OF IT WHILE IT'S IN THE CODE AND IT LOOKS JUST RIDICULOUS.
YEAH, I I I THINK LIKE THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S GREAT.
YOU, YOU, YOU HAVE ASKED US TO LOOK AT THE OTHER STORES
[00:45:01]
AND WHAT YOU'RE ALSO, BUT WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS TWICE THE PRICE, TWICE THE SIZE OF MANY OF THEM.AND, AND THERE, THERE IS THAT FACTOR.
AND WHAT IS 50%? IT'S EITHER 50 OR A HUNDRED PERCENT LARGER.
SO I DON'T THINK IT'S UNREASONABLE TO ASK YOU TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT IF YOU, BUT IT'S SO VISIBLE.
I HAVE, AND I DON'T HAVE, THERE'S, THEY SENT PROBABLY 20 OR 30 PHOTOS GOING UP AND DOWN, UM, THE MAIN ROAD FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS SHOWING YOU WHERE THE BUILDING IS AND HOW THERE'S NO VISIBILITY FROM IT UNTIL YOU GET WAY PAST IT.
WELL, I, I, I, I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE TIME TO BE JUST ARGUING THIS.
I DON'T AGREE WITH, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE HELPING THE CAUSE AT ALL BY DOING THAT.
YEAH, I I THINK THAT WE'RE, WE'RE, UM, ALL FANS OF BJ IS RIGHT HERE,
SOME OF US AT LEAST AGREE THAT THE SIGN WITHIN, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE WOULD ALLOW LOOKS LOST ON THE SPACE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE DON'T WANT IT HAVE IT BE SO LARGE THAT IT'S OVERWHELMING AND TAPES UP ALL THE SPACE.
SO WE'RE JUST ASKING YOU GUYS TO LOOK AT DIFFERENT VARIATIONS.
UM, AND LAST TIME WE THOUGHT THAT MAYBE BY REDUCING THAT SPACE IN BETWEEN THAT WOULD HELP.
IT HASN'T HELPED ENOUGH FOR US.
SO IF YOU GUYS COULD GO BACK AND JUST LOOK AT THAT AND THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
I HAVE ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION.
IF WE DO PROPOSE THE, THE REDUCTION 10% TO BJ'S, AND THEY'RE OKAY WITH MOVING FORWARD, DO WE HAVE TO APPEAR IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AGAIN OR CAN WE JUST SUBMIT THE REVISED DRAWING? I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE, TO BE HONEST.
WELL, YES, YOU'D STILL HAVE TO, UH, APPEAR BEFORE AGAIN.
RIGHT, BUT I'M, SHE'S SAYING JUST 10%.
I THINK THE SUGGESTION WAS MADE TO GIVE US PERHAPS 10, 20, 30 SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE THIS COMPARISON.
YEAH, WELL, 20 OR 30, I THINK MAYBE 10 OR 15 WOULD, YEAH, I THINK 20 OR 30.
YEAH, PROBABLY 10 OR 15 IS PROBABLY GOOD.
BUT I'M JUST SAYING, I MEAN, IF YOU GUYS, I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE IT WHERE YOU CAN DO IT RIGHT NOW? ARE YOU THE DESIGNERS OR YOU NO, I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
AND ALL MY DESIGNERS HAVE GONE FOR THE DAY.
BUT WE COULD GET SOMETHING TURNED AROUND FAIRLY QUICKLY AND PROVIDE A FEW ALTERNATE OPTIONS FOR, UH, FOR REVIEW.
SO IF YOU DO THAT, UM, WE'LL, WE'LL SEND OUT A LETTER TO CLARIFY AND THEN THAT WOULD SET YOU UP TO APPEAR ON THE MARCH MEETING.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE? NO.
AND THE NEXT CASE WE ARE HEARING THIS EVENING IS CASE 2244, MICHAEL MONTEZ.
EMILIO ESCALADAS, ESCALADAS ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS.
UM, WOW, THAT WAS, UH, INTERESTING.
UM, WE'RE HERE TO, UM, I GUESS WAIT FOR YOUR ANSWERS WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMENTS THAT YOU HAD MADE LAST TIME.
UM, WITH RESPECT TO, UM, THE, THE TECHNICALITIES OF PURCHASING THE PROPERTY AND THE, UM, UH, THE AVAILABILITY OF A, OF A SEARCH, OF A PROPER SEARCH THAT WOULD'VE YIELDED, UH, A WARNING FOR WHAT MY CLIENT, UH, UH, UM, DID NOT OR WAS NOT AWARE OF, WHICH IS TO REPEAT WHAT, WHAT THE VARIANCE IS ABOUT, IS TO BE ABLE TO, UH, ALLOW THE EXISTENCE OF, UH, OF A STRUCTURE THAT WAS BUILT TOO CLOSE TO A SIDE YARD INSTEAD OF EIGHT.
UH, IT WAS EXTENDED FROM THE PREVIOUS FOOTPRINT IN THE FRONT, UH, TO THE BACK.
AND AT THE BACK IS WHERE WE NEED THE 3.1 SETBACK.
SO THE, THE VARIANCE IS, IT'S STILL THE SAME, OF COURSE, IT'S, UH, IT'S FOR THE, FOR THE BOARD TO ALLOW THE EXISTING CONDITIONS TO PERSIST.
AND, UH, THE, THE REASON WHY IT WAS DONE, IT WAS CERTAINLY A MISTAKE, BUT IT WAS FOLLOWING THE, THE, THE FOOTPRINT THAT HAD BEEN CREATED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER.
AND, UH, THE SITUATION WAS, WAS, UH, WAS INHERITED BY MY CLIENT, AND HE SIMPLY CONTINUED WITH THAT FOOTPRINT WITHOUT REALIZING THAT THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT WAS IN, IN AN ERROR.
AND THEREFORE HIS ADDITION, UH, ALL THE WAY TO
[00:50:01]
THE END WAS ALSO IN ERROR.IT'S A SIMPLE, UM, HE MADE A MISTAKE BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS THERE, UH, WHAT WAS THERE.
WE FOUND OUT LATER THAT THERE HAD BEEN, UM, UM, A PERMIT FOR IT.
SO IT WAS, IT WAS ACTUALLY, UM, SOMEWHAT LEGAL
UM, BUT AGAIN, THE ERROR WAS MADE AND WE STAND BY IT, AND WE'RE, WE'RE HOPING THAT THE BOARD UNDERSTANDS, I HAVE HOPED THAT THE TITLE REPORT WOULD REVEAL SOME TYPE OF SURVEY READING OR SOME INDICATION AS TO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY THERE.
UM, AND THE REASON I SAID THAT WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS A MORTGAGE.
AND NORMALLY WITH THE MORTGAGE, YOU'D GET A TITLE, TITLE INSURANCE, AND YOU'D GET SOME TYPE OF SURVEY OF SURVEY READING.
AND THE SURVEY THAT WE GET, THE REPORT THAT WE GOT SHOWED THAT THE SURVEY READING WAS TO COME, BUT THAT WE NEVER GOT IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE OWNER GOT IT OR NOT.
SO THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I REALLY STILL HAD.
I COULD, CAN I ASK WHAT IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE VARIANCE THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR? I, I'M, I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? YOU MEAN THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR? WHAT ABOUT, YEAH, WHAT IS THERE? IT IS VERY CLOSE TO THE LINE.
IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A, THERE'S A DRIVEWAY SEPARATING, UM, THE APPLICANT'S HOUSE AND THE ADJACENT HOUSE.
IT'S ABOUT 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND THE THREE FEET AND THE THREE FEET, THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATION BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS OF 13 FEET, WHERE NORMALLY WOULD BE, UM, WOULD NORMALLY WOULD BE EIGHT AND EIGHT 16.
SO BECAUSE THERE'S A DRIVEWAY THERE AND THE THREE FEET, SO 13 VERSUS EIGHT 16, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THAT MUCH DIFFERENT.
I, I WAS JUST CONCERNED THERE WAS LIKE ONLY THREE FEET AVAILABLE AND EVERYTHING ELSE WAS BUILT UP, AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN 50 YEARS.
AND WAS IT SAFE? WAS ONE OF MY CONCERNS.
WELL, THE FIRST, SO IT'S 13 FEET.
WHAT, WHAT YOU, WHAT YOU, WELL, I SHOULDN'T SAY YOU, BUT, AH, WHAT WAS PRODUCED WITH RESPECT TO WHAT HAPPENED IN 1953 SHOWED THAT THE, THIS OPEN PORCH WAS WITHIN ONE FOOT OF THE SIDE LOT LINE.
SO YOU CONFUSED ME NOW THAT YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT 13 FEET, BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING FROM OUR LAST MEETING WAS THAT THE LINES WERE VERY CLOSE, UH, OR, OR THE, THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE VERY CLOSE TO THE, TO THE LOT LINE, BUT THE NEIGHBOR DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM.
UH, THE, THE, THE 13 FEET COMES FROM THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD NOW AND THE THREE FEET.
SO IT'S ROUGHLY 13 FEET FROM FACE TO FACE OF BUILDING.
THAT'S, I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE YOU A, OKAY.
A VISUAL, BUT OF WHAT WOULD END UP, BUT YOUR CLIENT'S PROPERTY WITH THIS, UH, STRUCTURE EX EXPANDED ALONG, WHAT HE WANTS TO DO, UH, WOULD BRING IT TO WITHIN THE ONE FOOT THREE OF THE LOT LINE, NO, 3.1, 3.1, 3.1.
WE WOULD STILL HAVE 3.1 FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
THAT'S THE VARIANCE THAT WE NEED.
WE NEED 3.1 EXISTING INSTEAD OF THE EIGHT THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED BY THE ZONING.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, THE, THE, THE VARIANCE THAT WE LOOKED AT, UH, WAS FOR WITHIN ONE FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE TO ALLOW THE UN ENCLOSED PORCH TO BE BUILT TO, UH, MR. ESCALADAS IS VERIFIED THAT WHATEVER WAS BUILT IS 3.1 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO ALERT THE BOARD OF THAT PRIOR VARIANCE.
AND THE NEIGHBOR'S DRIVEWAY, UH, IS EXISTING NON-CONFORMING.
UH, THEIR NEIGHBOR'S DRIVEWAY, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTO HERE, IS ESSENTIALLY RIGHT UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO THERE'S A COUPLE NON-CONFORMING CONFORMITIES GOING ON AMONGST THE TWO PROPERTIES.
LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE DOING A LOT OF WORK.
YOU KNOW, I CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING.
THEY WANT TO DO A LOT OF WORK.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS CASE?
[00:55:10]
THERE'S NO ONE ON ZOOM.AND WITH THAT, WE ARE ADJOURNED FOR OUR DELIBERATIONS.
AND AS INDICATED, WE CAN'T GO ANYWHERE.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO LISTEN IN, BUT NOT PARTICIPATE.
DO YOU WANNA TAKE A COUPLE MINUTE BREAK HERE? YES.
[01:01:44]
IN PROGRESS.SO WE'RE ALL SET FOR THE DELIBERATION PORTION? YES.
SO I GUESS WE COULD START WITH, UM, 2237.
I DON'T, DON'T REALLY NEED TO SEE ANYTHING.
UM, I PERSONALLY DON'T SEE A REASON FOR THEM THEM TO NEED A THIRD SIGN.
SO I, I, UM, SHAUNA, CAN YOU HEAR US ON? I CAN.
ON THIS ONE, I ALSO HAVE A LARGER PROBLEM IN THAT LIKE, WE KEEP HEARING THAT THE CORPORATION MANDATES THE SIGNAGE AND, UM, THEY DON'T MANDATE THE SIGNAGE.
THE TOWN TELLS THEM WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE.
I KNOW, BUT, AND THEN, AND WE HEAR THAT EVERYTHING I KNOW.
AND THEN, AND THEN THE OTHER LOCATIONS ALSO, LIKE, WE'D HAVE TO GIVE A VARIANCE TO EVERYBODY.
SO I, I I WOULD VOTE NO ON THIS.
I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THEY CAN'T TAKE THE SIGN OFF THE SOUTH SIDE AND PUT IT ON THE EAST SIDE AND BE DONE WITH IT.
THEY DON'T REALLY NEED IT ON THE EAST SIDE BECAUSE AS THE TRAFFIC IS COMING, YOU SEE THE UM, YARD SIGN RIGHT THERE.
BUT YOU DON'T NEED IT ON, ON THE SOUTH SIDE EITHER ELSE.
SO WE HAVE FOUR FOR, UH, DO WE NOT IN FAVOR OF THE DECISION, SO, RIGHT.
ALRIGHT, SO THAT WILL BE A, UM, DENIAL.
AND, UH, WE, WE HAVE A DENIAL FORM HERE AND WE CAN PASS THAT OUT.
IF YOU WANNA ADD TO IT, YOU CAN.
OTHERWISE, I THINK WE'RE READY TO GO.
AND SINCE WE CAN, WE ARE, YEAH, GO AHEAD.
I MUST SAY IT'S VERY DISCONCERTING TO LOOK AT THE, UH, SCREEN.
HAVE YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN THIS GIANT SCREEN OF ME ABOVE YOU AND ME, RIGHT?
OH, I THINK I WISH I WERE WITH YOU.
ALRIGHT, SO S AND J SERVICE CENTER, UH, WE DO NOT HAVE OUR, THAT'S CAN ADDRESS.
THEN THE NEXT ONE IS, UH, Z B A 2240.
[01:05:01]
THE KIMONA HANSON USE VARIANCE APPLICATION.WELL, AS WE, ALL THREE OF US SAID, WE GOT A VERY WELL PRESENTED CASE AND APPLICATION TO US.
SO WHAT, IF ANY ISSUES DO WE HAVE THAT WHEN THEY REBUILD IT, THEY TAKE CARE? THEY, THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A FLOODING CONDITION THAT THEY SHOULD CONSIDER.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.
OH, WE NEVER ASKED THE QUESTION OF WERE THEY ARE, ARE THEY CONSIDERED IN A FLOOD ZONE NOW? I DON'T KNOW.
WHICH, IF YOU ARE, THEN YOU ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE INSURANCE.
I THINK THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE THE POOR OFF STREET PARKING SPACES AND EVERYTHING ELSE THEY PRESENTED WAS SUCH A STRONG CASE FOR THE UNIQUENESS OF THE SITE.
NO, THEY, THEY HAD, THEY HAD UNIQUE ACROSS THE BOARD.
AND I THINK GIVEN WHAT THEY'VE LIVED THROUGH, THEY'RE NOT GONNA FORGET ABOUT FLOODING
WHEN I LOOK AT THE FIVE FACTORS, I FEEL LIKE THEY QUALIFY FOR THEM ALL.
THE ONLY QUESTION IS, WAS IT SELF-CREATED? 'CAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE INSURANCE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, HINDSIGHT IS 2020 AND WHO WOULD'VE KNOWN, YOU KNOW, IT'S NEVER, HASN'T FLOODED LIKE THAT IN A HUNDRED YEARS.
SO I FEEL, I FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THIS.
AND, UH, IN GIVING THEM THE USE VARIANCE, I FELT LIKE IT WAS REALLY, REALLY WELL CONSTRUCTED IN THE ARGUMENT WELL MADE.
AND ALSO THEY WERE FORTUNATE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY LIVE IN, THAT IT WOULD FIT IN WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY DISRUPTIONS.
I'M THE ONLY TWO FAMILY HOUSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WELL, THAT WAS ONE OF THE FACTORS.
SO AM I, WE PUT IT ALL FOR DECISION ONLY.
SO THAT WILL BE ON IN MARCH CLOSE FOR DECISION FOR MARCH, IT SOUNDS LIKE, IS WHAT THE BOARD WISHES.
I DON'T, I WOULDN'T WANT TO VOTE AGAIN.
SO WE HAVE ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WHICH WE CANNOT GET THIS EVENING.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO DISCUSS WITH REGARD TO THIS OTHER THAN, UH, SEEING WHAT THEY CAN PROVIDE US? NO, I, I MEAN, I, I WOULD JUST REITERATE THAT I, I DO AGREE THAT THE SIGN WITHIN THE SIX FEET, WHICH IS ALLOWED, UM, LOOKS TOO SMALL IN THAT SPACE, BUT, YOU KNOW, COME BACK WITH ALTERNATIVES WHERE IT'S NOT SO LARGE.
D SS W IS ACTUALLY LARGER THAN THE SIX FEET.
DO THEY HAVE A VARIANCE FOR THAT EIGHT FOOT SIGN? I BELIEVE THERE WAS A SERIES OF, UH, VARIANCES THAT WERE GRANTED FOR CROSSROADS A COUPLE YEARS BACK.
UM, LIZ, DO, DO YOU HAVE RECOLLECTION OF THE NATURE OF THE VARIANCE FOR THAT SPACE? I, I MEAN, IT MIGHT BE GOOD FOR US TO HAVE IT, THAT KNOWING THE SIZES THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED, LIKE, OR THAT OTHER I PULL UP, I CAN PULL UP THE DECISION FOR, UM, I THINK IT WAS 1340, BUT I CAN PULL UP THE DECISION AND THE ACTUAL PERMIT FOR, UH, D S W.
I DON'T THINK IF WE NEED IT TONIGHT, THEY JUST SEND IT TO US.
WE'LL, WE'LL, WHEN YOU FIND THAT, WE CAN JUST SET IT ASIDE AND MAKE SURE WE PUT IT IN THE BOARD'S NEXT PACKAGE.
NOW WE HAD A, UH, DIFFICULT SITUATION THERE.
I WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO VOTED IT AGAINST THAT SIGNAGE.
AND WHEN THEY SAW IT, THEY PUT IT UP THE NEXT DAY, EVERYONE ON THE BOARD WENT CRAZY.
SO THE NEXT IS, UH, 24 TERRYTOWN ROAD.
AND THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY CLOSED FOR DECISION ONLY.
AND THE DECISION, A DRAFT DECISION WAS PUT IN YOUR RECENT PACKAGES? YES, AND I HAVE REVIEWED THE DECISION MYSELF, AND I DON'T FIND ANY CHANGES NEEDED.
I READ IT, I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING.
I DO NEED A RESOLUTION OR TWO.
[01:10:01]
GONNA READ THIS? I'LL, I'LL READ IT.BECAUSE THERE'S ONE WORD I'LL READ FAST.
WHICH ONE? I'M TRYING TO FIND IT.
I WAS GONNA SAY, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING.
THE QUEUING, NO, WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR A WORD THAT I KNOW.
WE WERE JUST MORE BRITISH THAN AMERICAN.
YOU'RE GONNA READ IT, SO YEAH,
WHAT I SEE AND NOT WHAT YOU WROTE.
AND THEN LAST WE HAVE, UM, CASE 2244.
SHAUNA, GIVE US YOUR, UH, MY FEELING.
IT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE HE'S GONNA IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS REALLY A DERELICT KIND OF, AND HE'S WORKING HARD.
MY ORIGINAL CONCERN, WHICH I THINK I ACCIDENTALLY CONFUSED YOU WITH, WAS THAT THREE FEET, I DIDN'T KNOW HOW CLOSE THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE WAS TO THE PROPERTY LINE AS WELL.
SO I DIDN'T WANT A VERY NARROW, LIKE, FOUR FOOT PATHWAY THAT WOULD BE DANGEROUS AND SCARY AND ALL OF THAT TO BE BETWEEN THE HOUSES.
BUT BECAUSE THE DRIVEWAY IS THERE AND THEN THE THREE FEET THERE IS A, AN OPEN, SAFE SPACE BETWEEN THE TWO HOMES AND IT DOESN'T LOOK SO CROWDED, WHICH WAS, WHICH HAD BEEN MY CONCERN.
I THINK THE QUESTION WE ALSO HAD WAS ASKING FOR THE TITLE REPORT WAS WERE THEY AWARE THAT THEY WERE IN VIOLATION AND THEN BOUGHT IT ANYWAY? LIKE AS PEOPLE SOMETIMES DO, UM, YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING HERE, ALTHOUGH THE REPORT ISN'T COMPLETE, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WOULD LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT IT, THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION.
WE DON'T HAVE THE WHOLE THING.
SO, BUT THEY DID GIVE US WHAT THEY HAD, SO YES.
'CAUSE YOU KNOW, UM, I, MR.
I MEAN, THEY ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
SO I'M, THEY'RE IMPROVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I MEAN, IF THE HOUSE WASN'T THERE ALREADY, LIKE IT'S NOT, THE SPACE BETWEEN ISN'T DESIRABLE, BUT I, I WOULD VOTE YES ON THIS.
WE WRITE, ARE, ARE WE WRITING THIS UP TONIGHT? SO, UH, WE, WE HAVE, UM, THE FORM SUBSTANTIALLY FILLED OUT.
IF YOU DON'T DO THE FINDINGS, YOU CAN UPDATE THOSE AND SEND THEM TO US.
BUT WE HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION FILLED IN ABOUT THE PERCENT OF VARIANTS AND, UH, WE HAVE THAT FORM FILLED OUT.
SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE LOOK AT YOU, THE DENIALS WRITTEN OUT.
UM, SO I'LL JUST PASS THAT INFORMATION OUT AND THEN YEAH.
AND I NEED A, AND WE'LL LET THE ON FOR NO, WHEN WE'RE I NEED A SEEKER.
NO, WE'RE GONNA RE WE'RE GONNA DO THIS AND WE'LL DO THE FINDINGS HERE.
THE ONES WHERE THEY'RE FINDINGS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE.
NO, HANSON CLOSED FOR DECISION.
ANOTHER TIME I'LL HAVE GAR EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THAT'S, THAT HAPPENS, BUT NOT TONIGHT.
WELL, IN SHORT, IT'S A FAIRLY COMPLEX DECISION TO BE WRITTEN UP.
SO IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT, UM, LENDS ITSELF TO BEING DONE THIS EVENING.
SO THAT'LL BE IN YOUR NEXT PACKAGE AND YOU CAN REVIEW IT.
AND THEN, UM, I CAN GIVE YOU SEND IT TO YOU, GIVE YOU WORDS, SEND SO THAT YOU CAN FILL THAT IN.
AND THEN JUST SEND ME THE, THE DOCUMENT.
I WILL, OH, DO I YOU READ THE SECRET? YEAH, I READ THIS.
SO WHO'S, WHO'S READING WHAT I'M DOING?
[01:15:02]
I THINK YOU'RE DOING 44.AND THEN DON'T WE HAVE ONE MORE OR NO, 37.
THAT'S THE DENY, THAT'S THE DIAL.
YOU'RE GONNA, AND LOUIS, YOU HAVE THAT? LOUIS, YOU HAVE THAT.
OH, ON THE BAND GUIDES TONIGHT.
YOU WANNA SWITCH? NO, I'LL SWITCH UP.
YOU WANT TO, SO THIS ONE HAS TO BE WRITTEN UP THOUGH TOMORROW? NO, I, I'LL READ THE, UM, YOU CAN READ IT DOESN'T MATTER.
OKAY, SO WE'RE READY? ALMOST IS ANYTHING, OKAY.
SO YOU HAVE THE ONE SECRET ON THE S LET'S SEE HERE ON THE DENIAL.
I GUESS ED IS SEEKER TYPE TWO.
IS THAT, SHOULD THAT BE IDEN? THAT BE NOTED? YEAH.
WELL, NO, I, I DON'T, I WOULDN'T, THE WAY THEY TYPICALLY READ IT TALKS ABOUT NOT HAVING A NEGATIVE IMPACT.
I THINK SEEKER'S NOT APPLICABLE.
THERE'S NO NEED TO MENTION ANYTHING.
SO, UM, ON THAT DENIAL, THAT'S ALL YOU NEED.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT SECRA.
AND THEN, UH, I ASSUME WITH THE DELI DELICIOUS, DOES THAT HAVE A NOTE ABOUT SEEKER IN IT? UM, IN THAT DRAFT DECISION? IF NOT, WE CAN, UM, ADD TO THAT NOTE THAT THAT IS A TYPE APPROVING THAT CONDITION IS A TYPE TWO ACTION.
UH, CAN I SEE THE, UH, DELI DELICIOUS ORDER? HAS THAT, THANK YOU.
IT'S NOT REALLY AN ACTION BECAUSE YOU LEAVING IN PLACE WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.
IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, THAT'S FINE WITH ME.
SO I WOULD, I WOULD STATE THAT THERE ARE NO SEEKER CONSIDERATIONS.
ALSO KNOWN AS A TAX DIRECTION, WHATEVER YOU WANT.
SO IF YOU NEED A FEW MINUTES TO GET ORGANIZED, THAT'S FINE, BUT IF NOT, JUST LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE READY AND, UH, WE'LL GO LIVE AND THEN YOU'RE READY TO GO.
I THINK WE'RE READY WHENEVER YOU ARE READY? YEAH, I THINK WE'RE READY.
JANELLE, IF YOU COULD JUST LET ME KNOW THAT WE'RE RUNNING LIVE, WE'RE GONNA DO THE DECISION PORTION NOW.
AND WE ARE BACK WITH OUR DELIBERATE, THE RESULTS OF OUR DELIBERATIONS AND CASE 2205 ORALLY.
GETZ IS ADJOURNED FOR PURPOSES TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 16TH AND CASE 2215, MAR MARION WOODS.
L L C IS ADJOURNED TO APRIL 20TH CASE 2237 TARRYTOWN ROAD PARTNERS.
DO I HAVE TO VOTE? YEAH, WELL, I'M TRYING MY TEETH.
I WOULD HAVE TO READ A SECRET ON IT THOUGH.
I, YES, I I JUST THINK A BRIEF MENTION THAT IT'S A TYPE TWO ACTION.
UM, AND ONLY MENTIONING THAT IS ALL THAT'S NECESSARY.
ON 37 IT IS IN FACT A T A TYPE TWO.
REQUIRING NO FURTHER SECRET CONSIDERATION.
MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE 2237 BE DENIED.
UM, FINDINGS, THE APPLICANT HAS APPLIED TO ERECT A THIRD SIGN ON THE EAST SIDE OF ITS CANOPY WHERE THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERMITS TWO SUCH SIGNS ON A CORNER LOT WITH SUCH SIGNS INTENDED TO FACE THE STREETS THAT PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE SITE.
IN DENYING THIS APPLICATION, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HAS WEIGHED THE BENEFIT TO BE DERIVED BY THE APP VARIANCE AGAINST, AGAINST THE IMPACT THAT THE VARIANCE WOULD HAVE ON THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE FOUND THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL RESULT IN A DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES AND WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT THE CHARACTER OR PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT BECAUSE GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WILL SET A PRECEDENT FOR ALL GASOLINE STATIONS.
IN POINT OF FACT, NO VARIANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED FOR THREE SIGNS
[01:20:01]
ON A GAS STATION CANOPY IN THE TOWN.SUCH PRECEDENT WOULD BE ESPECIALLY A BE ESPECIALLY EGREGIOUS IN THIS CASE SINCE THE SIGN FOR WHICH THIS APPLICATION IS MADE WILL NOT BE FACING A STREET PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE SITE.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL IN RELATION TO THE REQUIREMENTS SOUGHT TO BE VARIED IN THAT THE VARIANCE IS THREE COMPARED TO TWO REQUIRED, WHICH IS A 50% INCREASE.
THE GOAL OF THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER FEASIBLE MEANS WITHOUT REQUIRING THE VARIANCE GRANTED IN THAT THE TWO WALL SIGNS AS PERMITTED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOW VEHICLES TRAVELING EAST AND WEST ON ROUTE ONE 19 TO SEE THE LOGO SLASH BRANDING OF THE APPLICANT.
MOREOVER, THE APPLICANT ALREADY HAS A LARGE MONUMENT SIGN VERY VISIBLE TO CARS DRIVING FROM BOTH THE WEST AND THE EAST OF THE SITE, AS WELL AS A WALL SIGN ON THE BUILDING FACING THE SOUTH OF THE LOT.
THEREFORE, ALTHOUGH THE REQUESTED SIGN WILL BE A THIRD SIGN ON THE CANOPY, THE APPLICANT ALREADY HAS FOUR LEGALLY PERMITTED SIGNS AT THIS STATION.
THE APPLICANT'S NEED FOR THE VARIANCE WAS SELF-CREATED BECAUSE THE APPLICANT BOUGHT OR LEASED THE PROPERTY WITH ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE THIRD CANOPY SIGN ON A CORNER LOT IS NOT PERMITTED.
AND THE NEXT CASE WE HAVE IS CASE 2238 SS AND J SERVICE CENTER ADJOURN FOR WHOLE PURPOSES TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 16TH AND THE NEXT CASE IS CASE 2240 KIMONA HANSSEN WHICH IS CLOSED FOR DECISION ONLY AND THAT WILL BE ON THE AGENDA FOR MARCH 16TH.
THE NEXT CASE IS CASE 2241 CROSSROAD CHOPPING CENTER BJ'S, WHICH ALSO IS ADJOURNED TO MARCH 16TH.
AND THE NEXT CASE ON OUR AGENDA IS CASE 22 4 2 1 0 1 REALTY 24 TARRYTOWN ROAD.
AND AND WHEREAS THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANY FURTHER SECRET CONSIDERATION AS THIS IS A TYPE TWO ACTION, I WILL MOVE THE MATTER IN THAT APPLICATION TO BE TREATED AS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM CONDITION NUMBER SIX TO A DECISION OF THIS BOARD IN CASE NUMBER 13 DASH 18, WHICH RESTRICTED THE USE OF A DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW TO BE AN ACCESSORY TO A DELICATESSEN USE ONLY THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PRINCIPAL USE OF THE SITE WILL BE A DELICATESSEN SET FORTH IN CONDITION SIX OF OUR DECISION IN CASE 1318 IS HEREBY REMOVED AND THE EXISTING DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW SHALL BE PERMITTED TO REMAIN PROVIDED THAT ONE THE PRINCIPAL USE OF THE SITE IS FLOOD RELATED FOOD, FOOD RELATED, I'M SORRY, WE HAVE WATER ON THE BRAIN TONIGHT.
SECOND, THE USE OF THE WINDOW IS RESTRICTED TO PICK UP OF PRE-ORDERED BY FAX, EMAIL, OR TEXT ITEMS AND OR ITEMS FROM A LIMITED MENU BOARD THAT MAY HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY PREPARED.
ALL OTHER ORDERS SHALL BE PREPARED AND PICKED UP FROM WITHIN THE STORE.
THIRD, THE DEEDED RESTRICTION REQUIRED BY CONDITION NUMBER SIX OF THE DECISION IN CASE 1318 SHALL BE REVISITED TO REFLECT REVISED, I'M SORRY TO REFLECT THIS DECISION AND AFTER APPROVAL OF SUCH RE REVISION BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY SHALL BE FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK AND FOR ALL OTHER APPROVALS AND CONDITIONS IN CASE 1318 SHALL REMAIN.
AND THE FINDINGS ARE THAT IN CASE NUMBER 1318, THE APPLICANT SOUGHT AND OBTAINED VARIANCES TO ERECT A DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW AT A DELICATESSEN THAT WAS OPERATED ON THE SITE.
THE NEIGHBORS OF THE PROJECT, AS WELL AS THE BOARD WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LIMITED SITE SIZE OF THE SITE AND THE CORRESPONDINGLY LIMITED NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT COULD UTILIZE THE DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW BEFORE THE LINE WOULD BACK UP ONTO OLD KENSICO
[01:25:01]
ROAD, THE MAIN ENTRANCE SLASH EXIT TO AND FROM THE FULTON PARK NEIGHBORHOOD AND A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE FOR SCHOOL BUSES AMONG OTHER COMMERCIAL VEHICLES.THE BOARD ULTIMATELY CONCLUDED THAT THIS POTENTIAL PROBLEM COULD BE MI MITIGATED BY LIMITING USE OF THE WINDOW TO THE TAKEAWAY OF ITEMS THAT HAD BEEN PRE-ORDERED AND OR ITEMS FROM A LIMITED MENU BOARD THAT HAD BEEN PRE PRE-PREPARED, WHICH WOULD MINIMIZE QUEUING OF VEHICLES ON THE SITE AND THEREFORE MITIGATE ANY TRAFFIC IMPACT FROM THE WINDOW.
BY ALL ACCOUNTS, THESE, THIS CONDITION WAS SUCCESSFUL AS NO EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINTS FROM THE OPERATION OF THE DRIVE-THROUGH DURING THE DECADE THAT IT WAS IN USE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD.
DURING OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION, THE DELICATES IN USE NOW HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED AND THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TENANTS TO REPLACE IT.
APPLICANT HAS EXPRESSED HIS DIFFICULTIES IN ATTRACTING NEW TENANT BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE OF CONDITION SIX OF OUR DECISION CASE 1318.
SPECIFICALLY THE RESTRICTION THAT THE DRIVE-THROUGH CAN ONLY BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DE DELICATESSEN USE AT THAT SITE.
THE PRACTICAL IMPACT OF THIS DECISION WILL BE TO EXTEND THE POTENTIAL USE OF THE LIMITED DRIVE-THROUGH TO ANY FOOD RELATED USE OTHER THAN RESTAURANT FAST FOOD OR QUICK SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS TO WHICH A PROSPECTIVE TENANT MAY WISH TO OPERATE AT THE PROPERTY.
AND GRANTING THIS APPLICATION, THE ZONING BOARD HAS WAIVED THE BENEFIT TO BE DERIVED BY THE APPLICANT FROM THE PROPOSED VARIANCE AGAINST THE DETRIMENT GRANTING THE VARIANCE MAY HAVE TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY.
AFTER DOING SO, WE HEREBY FIND THAT ONE GRANTING THE AREA VARIANCE WILL NOT RESULT IN AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES PROVIDED THE CONDITIONS OF FOR OF APPROVAL ARE FULLY COMPLIED WITH BECAUSE THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE DRIVE-THROUGH IS PRIMARILY ON TRAFFIC ON THE ACCESS ROAD.
THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED UPON THE DRIVE-THROUGH FOR THE PREVIOUS DELICATE TESTING USE, WHICH RESTRICTIONS WILL REMAIN AND BE EXTENDED TO ANY OTHER FOOD RELATED USE OF THE SITE OTHER THAN RESTAURANT FAST OR QUICK SERVICE.
ESTABLISHMENTS BY VIRTUE OF THIS DECISION, APPARENTLY ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE AS NO COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE DRIVE THROUGH FOR THE DELICATE TESTING DURING ITS YEARS OF OPERATIONS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD AND WE SEE NO LIKELIHOOD THAT THE SAME RESTRICTIONS WOULD BE AS EFFICACIOUS AS IF THEY ARE APPLIED TO ANOTHER FOOD RELATED USE.
WOULD NOT BE, WOULD NOT BE AS EFFICACIOUS AS IF THEY WERE APPLIED TO ANOTHER.
THE GOAL OF THE APPLICANT CANNOT BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER VISIBLE MEANS WITHOUT REQUIRING THE VARIANCE WE ARE GRANTING NOW.
APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO RENT THE SITE TO ANOTHER FOOD RELATED BUSINESS WITHOUT REMOVAL OF THE CONDITION, PERMITTING THE CONTINUATION OF THE DRIVE-THROUGH ONLY FOR A DELICATE TESTING USE.
THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO REMOVE THE DRIVE-THROUGH AND RELATED TRAFFIC LANE IF HE IS UNABLE TO FIND A REPLACEMENT DELICATE TEST IN USE AT GREAT EXPENSE AND FOR LIMITED, IF ANY PRACTICAL IMPACT.
THIRD, THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE REQUIREMENTS SOUGHT IN THAT THE PROPOSAL IS TO CONTINUE TO USE THE DRIVE-THROUGH FOR A SUCCESSOR FOOD RELATED USE.
GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT BECAUSE OF THE REMOVAL OF THE RESTRICTION REQUESTED WILL NOT ALTER OR ENLARGE ANY OF THE VARIANCES PREVIOUSLY GRANTED AND MAINTAINED FOR ALMOST A DECADE ON THE SITE WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL OR PHYSICAL IMPACT.
AND FIVE, THE APPLICANT'S NEED FOR THE VARIANCE WAS SELF-CREATED BECAUSE IT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
HOWEVER, THE FACT THAT AN APPLICANT'S NEED FOR AREA VARIANCE IS SELF-CREATED DOES NOT IN AND OF IT OF ITSELF REQUIRE US TO DENY AN AREA OF VARIANCE.
AND THE NEXT CASE WE HAVE IS CASE 2244.
MICHAEL MANTAS, 1 33 FLORENCE AVENUE.
AND DO I HAVE SEEKER ON THIS WHICH IS RIGHT HERE SOMEWHERE.
WHEREAS THE GREENBERG Z B A HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE-REFERENCED APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO C A COMPLIANCE AND WHEREAS THE GREENBERG Z B A HAS DETERMINED THE APPLICATION WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IS A TYPE TWO ACTION REQUIRING NO FURTHER SECRET CONSIDERATION.
[01:30:02]
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION AND CASE NUMBER 2244 BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND FILE, SAME WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEGIN NO LATER THAN 12 MONTHS AFTER THE GRANTING OF THE LAST APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND PROCEED DILIGENTLY THEREAFTER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PLANS DATED OCTOBER 18TH, 2022, SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION.
OR AS SUCH, PLANS MAY BE HEREAFTER MODIFIED BY ANOTHER APPROVING BOARD OR AGENCY OR OFFICER OF THE TOWN.
PROVIDED THAT SUCH MODIFICATION DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT OR GREATER VARIANCE THAN WHAT WE ARE GRANTING HEREIN.
THE VARIANCE BEING GRANTED IS FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION.
ANY FUTURE OR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SHALL REQUIRE VARIANCES EVEN IF THE CONSTRUCTION CONFORMS TO THE HEIGHT, SETBACK, OR OTHER VARIANCES WE HAVE APPROVED HERE IN SECOND.
AND WE WILL SUBMIT THE FINDINGS TOMORROW INTO THE RECORD.
AND WITH THAT WE ARE ADJOURNED AND I HOPE EVERYONE ENJOYS THE STOPS.