ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2010
Members Present: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake
Staff Present: Mr. Fusco, Mr. Selvek and Mr. Hicks
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: Southwest corner of Genesee Street and Dunning Avenue, 62 Locust Street, 105 Grant Avenue
Mr. Westlake: Before we start the meeting, we are going to go in Executive Session, which has been called by the Corporation Counsel.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have the following items: Southwest corner of Genesee Street and Dunning Avenue, 62 Locust Street, 105 Grant Avenue
If there are no errors, omissions or additions to last month’s minutes of the meeting, the minutes will stand as written. All in favor.
_____________________________________________________________
Southwest corner of Genesee Street & Dunning Avenue. C1 and C3 zoning districts. Applicant: 1238 Group, LLC. Area variances for signage for a proposed Rite Aid drugstore.
Mr. Westlake: First item is Southwest corner of Genesee Street and Dunning Avenue. Would you come to the podium, state your name and tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. Palumbo: Anthony Palumbo representing Auburn Development Company. Here before you tonight for the Rite Aid pharmacy sign variances. Last time I was here the board wanted to compare the differences between what Wallgreens were approved and actually installed on site and what we are proposing on our Right Aid pharmacy.
Mr. Westlake: Any questions from the board? I have a question on 6-a and 6b and 9a and 9b both say the same thing, one is a wall sign and one is a ground sign.
Mr. Palumbo: These are the ones here (points to plot survey).
Mr. Westlake: Why do we need that many signs to tell them where the drive thru is?
Mr. Palumbo: One set will be removed.
Mr. Westlake: We did get some information emailed to us.
Mr. Selvek: Is there anyone that didn’t get that email?
Mr. Darrow: The first thing that pops out on these hand outs to me the fact that the store square footage itself is roughly within 200 square footage of each other, one being 1467 and the other being 14458 yet the signage the variance for Walgreens is 164.46 square feet and what is needed here is 252.3 square feet for the same size buildings, yes the lots are different. Rite Aid’s lot is substantially larger to the tune of about 26,000 square feet. I just question that all the signage that is on here is truly needed if some of it isn’t it – directional signs I guess kind of fall into what I consider a gray area. You have got to have them yet they are subtracting from what the business is allowed. The exit only, enters only those sort of things that signage is needed but it also does count against the total.
Mr. Westlake: Are there more entrances to the Rite Aid store than there is for the Walgreens store, I think there is.
Mr. Palumbo: We have two entrances on Genesee; one on Dunning and Walgreens only has one on Genesee and Dunning.
Mr. Darrow: Walgreens has one on Genesee and one on Columbus.
Mr. Westlake: You have more entrances.
Mr. Palumbo: Our frontage is on Genesee Street is large.
Mr. Baroody: Formula ratio proportion 40% in the square footage.
Ms. Calarco: This building will be set back further from the road than the Walgreens which also would mean another reason why you are looking for more signage.
Mr. Darrow: You have a Rite Aid pole sign with LED, then you have a Rite Aid pole sign with changing copy now is that going to be an LED change for your board or is that going to be stick up letters?
Mr. Palumbo: A manual one.
Mr. Darrow: Manual, ok. Now can you show me on your plot survey where the Rite Aid sign is going with the changeable manual copy not the LED?
Mr. Palumbo: Here the reason we are having it here is you get a lot of traffic along Genesee, we want customers to know this is where you come in.
Mr. Darrow: And obviously pole signs on each corner?
Mr. Palumbo: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: Has this site plan been approved by Planning?
Mr. Selvek: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: Ok.
Mr. Westlake: If we have any more questions, we will call you back. Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, we will discuss amongst ourselves. Thank you.
In my opinion if he is willing to get rid of the one set of signs that would be good but that is just my opinion.
Mr. Darrow: I have one question, could you ask Mr. Palumbo to come back up?
Mr. Westlake: Mr. Palumbo, please come back to the podium.
Mr. Darrow: Would you point out where the two drive thru pharmacy signs are?
Mr. Palumbo: Yes. (Points to plot survey). Right where you come in.
Mr. Darrow: And the second one?
Mr. Westlake: It is on the side of the building.
Mr. Selvek: This is the ground signs 9a and 9b, the first ones located when you first enter on the one driveway and the other one in the parking lot area to the east side toward the exits.
Mr. Darrow: My guess the signs are about 1 x 4 foot sign?
Mr. Palumbo: Yes.
Mr. Westlake: Then there are three wall signs, 6a, 6b and 7 all say drive thru pharmacy.
Mr. Selvek: Let me clarify for the board 6a and 6b are the drive thru pharmacy signs with the arrow that would be placard on the side of the building. For those signs as well as sign 7which is a drive thru pharmacy that would actually be signage right above the drive thru canopy, the variance is needed for square footage. The on site informational signage does not count against the business signage per say, but there is a limit to five square foot sign so in this case both these signs to are 17 square feet and the one is 15 square feet so you are looking at an area variance because they are larger on site informational signage than what would be permitted for on site informational signage.
The remainder of the signs size wise don’t require any variance they are less than 5 square feet, as I noted in my notice to the board they are it is the way of doing business for them, they tell people where to pick up and drop off is, enter here, don’t enter here, clearance so on and so forth. The issue with much of the on site informational signage is that it is not greater than a height of 8 feet, in this particular case it makes sense because a lot are on a canopy above a vehicle and you can’t mount it in such a way that it would be lower so the height variances that are needed for the on site informational signage Planning staff feels is insignificant.
The area variances that needed for the on site informational signage that is a little more of a concern but it also depends on from what point in the parking lot are you trying to direct people to the drive thru pharmacy. The applicant has noted that they would be willing to forego one of these elevation signs drive thru pharmacy with an arrow and I think that starts to bring down the overall look and feel of all the signage that you are going to find there. Aside from that there are all the business signs and right now there are 8 separate business signs. In this particular case they are seeking a couple variances for height, none of these heights exceed that what Walgreens was granted for their pole sign. The area variance for the total business signage is 252 square feet. If you note Walgreens was 160 square feet, so there is a
considerable difference to the square footage of the over all signage.
Taking into account the lot size and primarily the lot frontage this lot is 40% larger than the Walgreens’ lot, I know this was a point that some of the board members brought up saying if it is a larger lot they should ultimately be allowed to have a larger amount of signs based on comparison. So looking at that I had noted I believe in the discussion that 224 square foot variance would be 40% larger than the 160 so if you wanted the whole Walgreens and Rite Aid’s exact measurements 160 if you wanted to take into account that they have a larger lot frontage which most times are signage is based on then it is 224 square foot variance.
The other issue is just to share number of signs and I actually noted that I added something incorrectly under the business signs there is a total of 8 business signs and a variance of 4 is needed these are primarily for food mart, photo center, GNC Live well which are small signs as well as the pharmacy. These smaller visibility signs are signs that Walgreens was not permitted to have at this location that they have at Grant Avenue because of different zoning districts. So that is what I was trying to get at for this board, as it is truly an “apples to apples” comparison of what is required. If there are any questions, I will try my best to answer them.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Palumbo you stated that you are willing to forego one wall drive thru pharmacy is that 6a or 6b?
Mr. Palumbo: That is 6a.
Mr. Darrow: Ok. Can we with this many variances and seeing eyes and hands I think it is safe to bundle them, is that ok with Corporation Counsel?
Mr. Fusco: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant the following sign variances for Rite Aid at the southwest corner of Genesee and Dunning Avenue for 1238 Group, LLC the applicant. The variances are as follows:
Sign ID 11 – 3-foot variance
Sign ID 12 – 3-foot variance
Sign ID 1a – 5-foot variance
Sign ID 1b – 5-foot variance
Sign ID 2 – 2-foot variance
Sign ID 6b – 12 square foot variance
Sign ID 7 – 10 square foot variance
Sign ID 6b – 8-foot height variance
Sign ID 7 – 4-foot height variance
Sign ID 8a – 3-foot height variance
Sign ID 8b – 3-foot height variance
Sign ID 8c – 3-foot height variance
Sign ID 8d – 3-foot height variance
All to be placed as submitted in lot survey and plan.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Selvek: If I may there are a series of other variances that are required for this, the variances include the 4 signs over the permitted 2 signs per street signs, the orientation of the pole sign that is neither perpendicular nor parallel to the corner or the street, as well as a 252 square foot allowed over the 100 square foot of street signage.
Mr. Darrow: Do those have corresponding numbers on the application?
Mr. Selvek: They are listed
Mr. Darrow: Is it items 1, 2, and 3
Mr. Selvek: Items, 1, 2, 3, and 4 we have under the individual variances and 5. Five is one of those funning things in our Code as well as #2; major concerns are 1 and 3.
Mr. Darrow: I also would like to make a motion that we grant 1238 Group, LLC, an area variance 1 sign over the allowed for street frontage sign; an area variance of the orientation of the street corner pole and 2 area variances for each of the pole signs 3 foot over the allowable 17 foot maximum height.
Mr. Selvek: There is #3 as well that would be square footage and that was a discussion I know the board was having with regards to how much additional square footage beyond the Wallgreens’ signage.
Mr. Darrow: So that would be?
Mr. Selvek: 40% greater would be the 224 square feet to meet what they are requesting would 252.3.
Mr. Darrow: Minus 17.
Mr. Selvek: 17 does not count against that different signage.
Mr. Darrow: Still remaining 252.3 the 17 does not get deducted?
Mr. Selvek: No.
Mr. Darrow: Then item #3 an area variance of 252.3 square foot of signage in total.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved. Good luck with your project.
Mr. Palumbo: Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
62 Locust Street. R1 zoning district. Area variance for an addition. Applicant: William Wildner.
Mr. Westlake: Next is 62 Locust Street. Would the applicant please come to the microphone, and state what is different this time in what we have before us tonight.
Mr. Giacona: Good evening, Sam Giacona on behalf of William Wildner. As I indicated in the application there was some confusion at the August meeting last year concerning what exactly Bill wanted to do with this addition. So I spelled it out a little more clearly he wants to fully enclose it instead of doing two sides that he originally anticipated, he is going to fully enclose it as per the computer generated diagram that is attached to the application.
In addition at that time in August he was un-represented by counsel and really didn’t know the ins and outs of Zoning Board practice and I think had he known then what he knows now he would have elected to table his application until a full panel was available as it was not, I believe at that night there were only 4 members present. Based upon those changes I believe that the board should grant this application to be reheard on this issue.
Mr. Westlake: Questions from the board?
Ms. Calarco: I am going to ask the question what circumstances changed from the use of he wanted to use it for last time as to what he wants to use it for now.
Mr. Darrow: I think we first need to discuss if we are going to re-hear it. Going from 2 to 3 sides other than that everything else is the same right?
Mr. Giacona: Exactly.
Mr. Darrow: He is enclosing 3 instead of 2 sides.
Mr. Baroody: Fully enclosed.
Mr. Darrow: Do we feel that is a substantial change?
Mr. Westlake: I think the last time there was a major question of whether it was going to be used for storage of construction equipment. Now if this computer generated chart shows just a man door so I don’t believe it would be used for storage of construction equipment. Looks to me like it is going to be used for a summer time
Mr. Darrow: Like a 3-season room.
Mr. Westlake: A 3-season room.
Mr. Darrow: We can only see 2 sides, this side here is it windows, a door an overhead door?
Mr. Giacona: The backside?
Mr. Darrow: Yes.
Mr. Giacona: No overhead door absolutely not, actually I have a picture of that as it exists today.
Mr. Westlake: What is the general consensus of the board? Do you think it is different?
Mr. Darrow: If there are no other questions, I would like to put forth a motion that I feel that there is substantial change for us to hear this application being that it is now a 3 sided and being enclosed and the use is much much more specific.
Mr. Baroody: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: All agreed to rehear because he does have a substantial difference. Questions from the board?
Mr. Giacona: If I could just have a brief opening here. I scoured these minutes and gone through this application and it started off just as a patio with a roof over it to have a table out there, cook and have a place to gather with friends, a card table and things of that nature. Once he constructed it it became apparent it wasn’t usable in that fashion. It rained, the mud, leaves blowing in, etc., so he decided to close it in, I think he had the understanding and reasonably thought that he had obtained a variance to put the roof and patio, why not close it in. So that is why he proceeded and of course the neighbor objected, Mr. Dunster, I believe he is here as well. In the minutes there came up an issue about is construction business and yes he is a contractor and an excellent contractor, but he absolutely does not have intention
whatsoever of using that room this addition to his pole barn for storage of construction equipment. He has another pole barn in Skaneateles that he uses for storage of all of his equipment; I can produce evidence of that. He does not want his home to be a construction site obviously he lives there and based upon that I think that we can rest all our fears that there is going to be storage of construction equipment. To say I don’t want you to close it in because you are going store construction equipment may have construction equipment outside but that is not what he wants it for. So I think the neighbors are here and they are prepared to come forward and give their support for this project except for Mr. Dunster.
Mr. Darrow: The siding of the building is it going to be metal siding or match the rest of the house?
Mr. Giacona: It is going to match the pole barn that has been there for many many years.
Mr. Darrow: Metal siding.
Mr. Giacona: Similar to that. With that said I will be glad to answer any questions. Bill is here and can answer any questions.
Mr. Westlake: Seeing none from the board is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Come to the microphone and please speak right into it and let us know your know name and comments.
Mr. Villano: Mike Villano, 63 Fleming Street. I live our yards are attached, Bill and I and I have lived there for 16 years. I see no, he is making a nice building look good; right now I am looking at an unfinished building so if anybody has concerns I should have a concern looking at an unfinished building. Put the window in there and what he wants to do he is going to use it for a room to play cards and watch TV I have no problem with that. I want to say that I am for it and I have no problem with Bill. I try to get along with all my neighbors. I appreciate the board taking into consideration what he wants to do there. Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to speak for or against?
Mr. Lukowski: My name is Eric Lukowski I don’t live in that neighborhood but I work with Billy, he has done work on my house he is very specific on how things look. He even drove around the lake to see what colors he would put on the pole barn so it wouldn’t stand out, he is very concerned about his work, wants everything to look neat and he is very professional in that way so it is not going to look like a piece of junk. Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Anyone else?
Ms. Daniels: My name is Charlene Daniels I live at 60 Fleming Street across the street from the property. We can see the structure from our living room window and in no way find it objectionable whatsoever. Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Anyone else?
Mr. Dunster: James Dunster I live adjacent. I really don’t have any objections if he is going to enclose the room. I have not seen the pictures but based on the description if he only going to be able to use it as a man door it won’t turn into a workshop that is my concern. We are in an R-1 and it should be in consideration of this board. If he is going to create this structure to increase his business aspect at all I think it should be addressed by this board.
Mr. Fusco: If we were to attach to an approval should there be one tonight a specific condition that it has to look like the rendering, has to have a man door can’t have an overhead door for vehicles and can’t be used as a workshop would that satisfy you?
Mr. Dunster: Well to a certain degree but I also think you should be more general and say construction itself because he does actively weld as well as wood work. My concern is if you adopt this, as it is are you changing the modification of the neighborhood?
Mr. Fusco: Would a condition that it be used solely for customary residential purposes and not commercial or industrial purposes satisfy you?
Mr. Dunster: If you would give me a moment to think about that I certainly will answer you directly.
Mr. Baroody: It is not your call either, what he is asking for is what he is looking to do here.
Mr. Dunster: It is my call because I am a neighbor.
Mr. Westlake: It is not going to be just yours; we have also heard neighbors speak for it. I guess counsel was asking you what can we put in front of you to make it non-objectionable to you.
Mr. Fusco: May I just remind the members of the board that you can make conditions in area and use variance cases, you can set conditions. It is not my advice that you do so I am not recommending that you do so it is just that is a device a tool that you have at your disposal under New York Law that perhaps could avoid a neighborhood controversy here.
Mr. Dunster: Up to now the major issue I have is that it does look like a construction site. There are numerous times that there are trailers parked out in front of it adjacent to a tractor.
Mr. Westlake: We are not here for that, we are just here for this addition, and we went through this the last time.
Mr. Baroody: We can only look at this building.
Mr. Dunster: Wouldn’t affect the way it is looked at?
Mr. Westlake: This is all we can look at tonight.
Mr. Dunster: As far as I am concerned if he builds it as such and uses it as recreational there should probably be no objection for myself as well as the rest of the neighborhood.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Anyone else?
Mr. LaDuca: Good evening everyone, Jeff LaDuca. I have know Bill for a few years now and I have a small business here in Auburn and Skaneateles and he has done some contracting for me, he has built both of my offices, done work at my house. He does exceptional work; he is meticulous, overly meticulous. At this point in his career I don’t think he is looking to light the world on fire and to expand his business and try to do at his house I understand the concern that maybe this could be misconstrued as working to expand his business. Bill has turned business away because he is look at him; he is old (everyone laughs). I don’t think he is out there to increase his business. I would caution I mean suppose I wanted to put a woodshop in my garage or extension on my garage, I could personally do that I mean a fellow can have a hobby
you could do things so to put a limitation that he can’t do anything in there but play cards, I would be a bit cautionary going to a man’s domicile telling him what he can or can’t do. If you have welding materials going on and things going on at all hours of the evening into the morning that could be disruptive to the neighborhood. I think conditions are appropriate but I think you need to be careful about what you can tell a person what he can do on his own property. I know for a fact that this is going to look good. I know it is not going to be an eyesore to this neighborhood and what he does on the side as long as it is not disruptive to his neighbors I don’t know if it should be a issue. Thank you.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against?
Mrs. Villano: Nancy Villano, I live at 63 Fleming Street, right behind Bill. He has never been disruptive anything in the neighborhood.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Seeing none, we will discuss this amongst ourselves.
Mr. Baroody: I have no problem making a motion for discussion that we submit it for approval as submitted. I have a real problem telling someone what they can do at their home a real problem. As long as it is built as submitted, we have heard all the facts, he does a good job, and I am not going to tell you that you can play poker but not hearts! I don’t think that has anything to do with this board. We have to be very careful.
Mr. Darrow: I agree with that to a point, the point is yes he is a contractor, yes can he have a wood working hobby, of course, can he do his wood working hobby at your primary residence yes, it is a hobby. I think the dividing line becomes when what you are doing at your residence is for resale or for profit is not longer a hobby. Then that is when we have Codes that would address that because if they are out saw cutting, welding 10:00 p.m. at night well there is a route to address that. I do agree that I would not want to be the first one to say that this addition is for a specific purpose of residential uses because what is a residential use? I don’t know if we have anything in our City Ordinances stipulating every single residential use.
Mr. Tamburrino: It is R-1, don’t need to do that.
Mr. Darrow: Because it is in a residential area, then we do have Ordinances that deal with noise and other means of addressing it rather than but I do completely understand Mr. Dunster’s concerns. I would not want to live next door to that.
Mr. Westlake: Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Baroody: I would like to make a motion that we grant William Wildner of 62 Locust Street an area variance of 476 square feet for an addition to the existing 960 square feet non-conforming accessory structure as submitted in the packet.
Mr. Tamburrino: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: Your application has been approved, good luck with your project.
Mr. Giacona: Thank you very much.
_____________________________________________________________
105 Grant Avenue. C3 zoning district. Area variance for signs. Applicant: Ioannis, Inc./Kosta’s Bar & Grill.
Mr. Westlake: 105 Grant Avenue, if you would come to the podium. Let them clear out before we begin.
Mr. Giacona: Sam Giacona I am here on behalf of John. Briefly he wants to keep his signs up at Kosta’s it is a source of great advertising and I talked with Brian about this and my client’s major beef is that he believes he is being singled out and Brian said he is systematically going through other businesses on Grant Avenue that have similar signs and I know that all of you have seen them. But he has been doing it for years as I indicated it is a great source for advertising and in particular he has been he has been soliciting his customers when they come in and he asks them why they come in and many of them mention we saw the sign “wings”. So that is our application glad to field any questions that the board may have.
Mr. Fusco: Before this board asks questions I want to assure you and your client that your client is not being singled out. On behalf of City Manager, the Code Office and Corporation Counsel Office which prosecutes these cases a number of sign situations not only on Grant Avenue nor your client’s neighborhood but throughout the City of Auburn have been viewed very carefully in the last year. It was good that your client got to see what the board did in the first case tonight where obviously this board went to great care to make sure that signage was done fairly and the two sources happened to be kiddy corner with one another were treated equally. So please do try to realize that no one is picking on anybody here.
Mr. Giacona: I understand that and I have heard rumors about City Hall coming down on signage throughout the City this is not the only case I have heard but my client does feel that he is being singled out and I guess
Mr. Westlake: Sam I don’t think so because your client was in here a few months ago asking for a variance for addition to his building and we granted that variance. We don’t single anybody out.
Mr. Giacona: No, no, I am not saying that being singled out by the process, not this application not at all. But I guess he would want to have his signs remain there until everyone else had to take them down.
Mr. Westlake: That is the decision of the board tonight; the board may have some questions of you.
Mr. Darrow: Which signs are you talking about?
Mr. Baroody: The big banners.
Mr. Darrow: The big banners ok.
Mr. Westlake: I believe they say “all the prime rib you can eat”, “all the crab”.
Mr. Darrow: I have gone in because of the signs.
Mr. Giacona: John has photos of all the signs.
Ms. Marteney: Are you also talking about the apron signs?
Mr. Kosta: No just the signs on the building, it is the “prime rib”, “chicken wings”, “headquarters for the Syracuse games at the dome”, and “half price burgers”. When I look out my front door I can see 6 signs that I have right here (motioning to pictures) and I knocked on the doors and asked them did you get a summons from the City and they answered “no”! But I was one of the first ones to get ticketed to Court this month and I feel like I have an arrow stuck on my neck.
Mr. Giacona: I think you get the picture.
Mr. Darrow: We don’t know which one of these signs on Grant Avenue
Mr. Kosta: This is Kahuna’s, this is across the street it is a banner (showing pictures), these are on Grant Avenue.
Mr. Fusco: The elements that you have to consider obviously you know them well you deal with this every month are laid out in Statute 81 of the City Law of the State of New York, selected enforcement is not one of those issues.
Mr. Westlake: The signs are already up, it is like in a way pre-existing non-conforming because the signs have been up for quite a few years. They have been there, I can attest to them for 9 years.
Mr. Darrow: I feel bad for Mr. Kosta I can understand those signs do draw.
Ms. Calarco: The signs are not legal they are here to make them legal.
Mr. Westlake: Correct.
Mr. Darrow: I hate to say they are such temporary signs as they have been up so long but the fact that they are on that banner material says to me temporary signs. But once we do give them this if we should give them 120 square foot of additional signage the one thing that would work in his favor is those signs can be switched out because he is allowed that much square footage where next week he wants to put something else up he doesn’t have to come back because of the square footage.
Ms. Calarco: I guess I am looking at it that he is here to make it right.
Mr. Darrow: I agree with you he is taking the high road but my only I do say this cautiously, my only fear is this one is 120 now if somebody else gets cited they are 325
Mr. Westlake: We look at each case. We are here tonight to look at Mr. Kosta. This doesn’t set precedence.
Mr. Darrow: It doesn’t set an exacting precedence it sets a guiding precedence exactly like we looked at Walgreens and Rite Aid it was a guiding precedence.
Mr. Westlake: We are looking at the individual case that is what we are here for, we are the Zoning Board of Appeals, appealing to us we are not the Zoning Board, we are the Zoning Board of Appeals. He is here tonight to appeal to this board to say he wants this amount of signs. It is up to you as a board member to say yes or no.
Mr. Darrow: The point is we have to look at ramifications. There is no one here more than me that wants to put motion forward, I think it is a bad situation because I just want to look at what could possibly happen there are a lot of signs on Grant Avenue!
Ms. Calarco: We address them when they appear.
Mr. Bartolotta: You are suggesting it be in line with the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Darrow: Yea and if not like when you look at his property all you see is signage because I don’t get that feeling, some properties when you look at them all you see is signage, this doesn’t feel that way.
Ms. Marteney: He also has 3 freestanding signs in the median area that change.
Mr. Darrow: I have not seen a freestanding sing, not sure what you mean.
Mr. Kosta: I do have a sign for BBQ; I put it out and then put it away.
Ms. Marteney: Hot dog signs and other kinds of signs.
Mr. Kosta: I don’t have any hot dog signs.
Mr. Fusco: Consistent with what I have observed, here is one of the potential downsides because a variance runs with the land if he is to get carte blanche 320 foot variance tonight it doesn’t stop he or perhaps the next person who buys the property from having a huge 320 foot sign on the front of the building in order to consolidate what ever rights he has under the Code plus whatever extra privileges he gets tonight and then he has one whomever, not Mr. Kosta, perhaps his successor has now one enormous sign on the front of the building and he would be perfectly legal to do this. I understand also Ed’s concern that we don’t every time he has a new food special that he needs to come a new variance, but it just seems to me there is a middle ground for those two concerns that temporary signage if you are to grant the
variance again we can go back to these conditions you don’t have to do it you may want to consider it like kind signs to the ones that are there in size 3 x 8 instead of one 100 feet across.
Ms. Calarco: That doesn’t proceed onto the next owner.
Mr. Darrow: That we can’t stop.
Mr. Westlake: We could put a sunset clause. We have done sunset clauses before and Corporation Counsel has told us numerous times that we can.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this application? Seeing none we will discuss it amongst ourselves.
Mr. Darrow: There are just five 3 x 8 signs.
Ms. Marteney: How many on the front building right now?
Mr. Kosta: Three of them and 2 on the side for 5.
Mr. Westlake: Five is the answer. Do I hear a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Ioannis, Inc./Kosta’s Bar & Grill, 105 Grant Avenue an area variance for the display of five 3’ x 8’ banner type signs to be attached to the building with a sunset provision to expire upon transfer of said property.
Ms. Marteney: Is attached the right word? Displayed, I don’t know.
Mr. Fusco: Good question. Instead of attached use displayed on the side of the building.
Mr. Darrow: Change attached to displayed.
Mr. Baroody: I will second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Marteney, Mr. Baroody, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Tamburrino, Ms. Calarco, Mr. Bartolotta and Mr. Westlake.
Mr. Westlake: Thank you very much your application has been approved.
Mr. Giacona: Thank you.
Mr. Kosta: Thank you.
| 
