You are hereZoning Board of Appeals -- October 26, 2009 (53 Hudson Avenue)
Zoning Board of Appeals -- October 26, 2009 (53 Hudson Avenue)
document:
REGULAR MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Nyack Village Hall 26 October 2009
Nyack, New York
Present: Steven P. Knowlton, Chair In Memoriam:
Mary Ann Armano (absent) Raymond O’Connell
John Dunnigan
Robert Knoebel, Sr.
Ellyse Berg
The following resolution was offered by Member Berg, seconded by Member Dunnigan, and carried based upon a review of the evidence presented at the public hearing held on 26 October 2009 .
BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF NYACK, COUNTY OF ROCKLAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
In the Matter of the application of Hudson One Inc. (53 Hudson Avenue) for an Area Variance from VON Code 59-25E(1) to permit placement of a sign not facing a street.
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public meeting on the 26th of October 2009, and due deliberations having been made this day;
Now, upon said hearing and upon the evidence adduced thereat, it is hereby found and determined that:
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
FIRST: Applicant petitions the Zoning Board for the variance noted above.
.
SECOND: The ZBA, in reaching its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law has taken the following factual testimony and evidence under consideration:
1. The application and supporting documents submitted;
2. Testimony of Julia Khomuti, principal and Applicant;
3. ZBA members site visits and knowledge of the site in question
4. Positive recommendation of the Planning Board in relation to the variance request
5. There was no public comment
THIRD: The site in questionis located in the M zoning district. The Applicant purchased the property in approximately 1996 pursuant to the local zoning regulations.
FOURTH: The Nyack Planning Board has issued a positive recommendation to this Board in relation to the variance request.
FIFTH: The applicant seeks this signage system in order to attract customers and advertize businesses in the building.
SIXTH: The signage will not affect traffic.
SEVENTH: The applicant requires the additional signage to increase customer traffic.
These Findings of Fact were moved and passed 4-0.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
The Zoning Board considered the factors set forth in Section 7-712-b of the Village Law of the State of New York as follows:
FIRST: That the proposed variance does not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood.
SECOND: That no detriment to nearby properties will result from granting the variance.
THIRD: That the Applicant has demonstrated that there is no other means by which it could achieve its purpose without the requested variance.
FOURTH: That the variance is not substantial in light of the current conditions on the site.
FIFTH: That the hardship is not self-created. (3-1)
The Board has weighed the findings of fact and the conclusions of law against one another as required under Section 7-712-b of the Village Law of the State of New York and finds in the interest of justice that the variance(s) applied for should be GRANTED with the following conditions:
1. Conditions of the ARB shall be followed.
2. Variance is applicable for the signage to be placed on the East side of the building only, and applies to the East side of the building only.
On a roll call, the vote was as follows:
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Abstain: 0
s/ Steven P. Knowlton
_____________________________
STEVEN P. KNOWLTON, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals, Nyack.
Tags
