Zoning Board of Appeals — September 26, 2011 (91 Main Street)

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 Brian O’Connor on behalf of the Applicant;
3. ZBA members knowledge of the site in question;
4. Site visits by all members of the ZBA;
5. 5.                  The positive recommendation of the ARB to this Board in relation to the grant of the variance.
6. There was no public testimony.

 

THIRD:          The site in question is located in the DMU zoning district and is leased by the Applicant.   The applicant seeks permission for the installation of new fabricated stainless steel, backlit letters stating “Harbor Hill”.  The proposed sign illumination is internal and creates a halo of light around the letters onto the brick fascia behind the sign.  According to the applicant, this is a subtle form of lighting and is less intrusive than other forms of external illumination.  The proposed lighting is similar to the lighting used for the previous “Vertigo” sign.  The applicant has provided proof that the owner of the property, FLS Group LLC, consents to the application.  

 

FOURTH:      The Nyack Architectural Review Board (ARB) has issued a positive recommendation to this Board in relation to the variance request.  Both the applicant and the ARB agree that a backlit sign is preferable to the horizontal strip lighting permitted by the Code in the DMU district.

 

FIFTH:           The Applicant seeks the signs to advertise his business and enhance sales in the downtown district.

 

SIXTH:          The illumination for the sign will be provided by white internal Sloan LED lighting, with 4 modules per foot and sixty lumens per foot.   Mr. O’Connor testified that the brightness of the lighting is diffused by approximately 60% due to the configuration of the letters and the reflection of the light off the fascia. 

 

SEVENTH:   Hours of operation will be variable, but the sign will be illuminated only from dusk through close of business. 

 

(Moved and passed 5-0)

 

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. (5-0)      

 

SECOND:      That no detriment to nearby properties will result from granting the variance. (5-0)              

THIRD:          That the Applicant has demonstrated that there is no other means by which it could achieve its purpose without the requested variance, especially given that the ARB has requested the backlit letters.  (5-0)

 

FOURTH:      That the variance is not substantial in light of the current conditions on the site (5-0)

 

FIFTH:           That the hardship is self-created. (4-1, Knoebel dissenting)               

 

 

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 applied for should be GRANTED with the following conditions:  

 

1. Hours of illumination are limited from dusk through close of business.
2. Applicant will follow the conditions imposed by the Architectural Review Board.

 

On a roll call, the vote was as follows:

 

Ayes:               5

 

Nays:               0

 

Abstain:           0

 

 

 

 

 

______Catherine H. Friesen_______

CATHERINE H. FRIESEN Chair

Zoning Board of Appeals, Nyack.