ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PUBLIC HEARING
Community Fellowship at Princetown Church
November 30, 2009
PRESENT: Michael Hickok
Samuel Salamone
Tim Bishop
Eric Plura - Chairman
Joe Jurczynski
Alternate: Rich Olsen
Absent: Victor Benson
ALSO PRESENT: Daniel Mueller B. Pahl and Town Attorney - James Sweeney
Minutes were taken by Dawn M. Campochiaro, Secretary
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Plura called the meeting of Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 7:32pm.
II. CORRESPONDENCE:
Dawn M. Campochiaro read the following notice as posted in the Daily Gazette:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Princetown will conduct a hearing on the following proposition on Monday, November 30, 2009 at 7:00pm at the Town Hall at 165 Princetown Plaza:
Community Fellowship at Princetown Church is hereby requesting an area variance to expand the size of their current sign as per 7.9.E3 of the zoning law.
Chairman Plura asks the secretary if there was any correspondence from the Town of Princetown Planning Board: Yes. The majority of the members did not have an objection to granting the variance, although some members felt it might set a precedent for larger signs in residential areas when other options are available. Also, several members made onsite visits to the property and determined a larger sign area would not affect sight distance for traffic using the road.
Chairman Plura asks the secretary if there was any correspondence from the Schenectady County Planning Department: Yes. The Schenectady County Department of Economic Development and Planning defers to local consideration on the area variance.
Chairman Plura asks who is representing this area variance request: Mr. Daniel Muller of Birch Lane, Scotia stated that he is and that the church is requesting the area variance as a source for information for the community.
M. Hickok asks Mr. Muller if the sign is going to be lit. Mr. Mueller stated they would like to have solar powered lights in the summer and then take them out of the ground in the winter.
T. Bishop asked Mr. Muller with this variance are you looking to increase membership or keep the existing membership. Mr. Muller stated that the church hope to have the sign to let the public know what is being offered at the church.
T. Bishop said to Mr. Muller that there is other ways to communicate to the public without increasing the size of the sign. Examples, the internet, bulletins and newspaper.
D. Campochiaro asked if she could speak and Chairman Plura said yes. D. Campochiaro stated to Mr. Bishop that the majority of our residents are older and do not have a computer or internet access. D. Campochiaro also said that she and her family read the sign at the Princetown Church located on Rt 20 to see what activities they are having and decided if they would attend, but her family is not members of the church and she would not go to their necessarily go to their website for information.
Chairman Plura stated to the applicant that the original sign is on county property and that there is no record of a building permit and he will need to get approval from the county before this area variance can be determined.
IV. PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Chairman Plura opens the meeting to the public.
Chairman Plura closes the meeting to the public.
T. Bishop makes the motions to postpone the area variance indefinitely
Joe Jurczynski seconds the motion
V. ROLL CALL
J. Jurczynski - in favor of postponement of the area variance indefinitely
Mike Hikock - in favor of postponement of the area variance indefinitely
Sam Salamone - in favor of postponement of the area variance indefinitely
Tim Bishop- in favor of postponement of the area variance indefinitely
Chairman Plura - in favor of postponement of the area variance indefinitely
Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Chairman Plura and seconded by S. Salamone
Meeting adjourned at 8:15pm
III. BALANCING TEST:
The 5 points were reviewed:
•1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance.
•2. Whether the applicant can achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance.
•3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
•4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.
Respectfully submitted by:_________________________________ Date:_______________
Dawn M. Campochiaro, Zoning Board Secretary
