Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-22-BZA-FINALTOWN OF ULYSSES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Monday, August 22, 2017 Approved: September 20, 2017 Present: Chair George Tselekis, and board members Bob Howarth, David Means, Steve Morreale, and Cheryl Thompson; Environmental Planner Darby Kiley. Mr. Hillman was excused. Ms. Thompson was made a voting member in place of Mr. Hillman. Public in Attendance: Leslie Webster, Brian Davis, Noy Davis, Holly Austin, Mack Travis, Jamie Swinnerton, and Carl Mazzocone. Call to order: 7:04 p.m. Privilege of the Floor: Ms. Webster, of Taughannock Boulevard, said she is concerned about too many signs. Most area wineries have just one, and that is sufficient enough to direct motorists. Resolution for Sign 3 variance Reiterating his comments from the previous week's BZA meeting, Mr. Howarth said he is concerned about the total number of signs, the size of the signs and their proximity to Route 89, a designated scenic byway. State guidelines call for as few signs as possible near scenic byways, and he will have a hard time approving these variances because of those guidelines. Ms. Kiley asked Mr. Mazzocone about Sign 3, located on the right of way currently owned by the State Department of Transportation. Mr. Mazzocone said he will do whatever he can — including purchasing the land the sign is on — to augment Sign 3. In regard to Sign 2 — with the word "Taughannock" fixed to a retaining wall, Mr. Morreale said he did not like proliferation of signs and asked if Mr. Mazzocone had considered a facade sign, fixed to a building. Mr. Mazzocone said he was against the idea because of aesthetics. He wanted an organic, tasteful and useful sign to promote the area. Mr. Davis added that the proposed new building and a possible fagade sign would not be viewable from the Route 89 roadway. Asked about the letter size, Mr. Mazzocone said each letter would be 18 inches in height. Mr. Davis added that Mr. Mazzocone intends to put in the retaining wall in front of the Inn; adding the letters would not be much of an impact on the public. Mr. Morreale reiterated his concern over the proliferation of signs and believes the BZA should abide by the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Sign 2 is not subtle and is far beyond the square footage maximum for signs. Mr. Howarth agreed. He said he understood Mr. Board of Zoning Appeals 1 2 August 22, 2017 Mazzocone's intentions to promote the area, but the sign runs counter to State guidelines regarding signs along scenic byways. Ms. Thompson felt okay with Sign 2, saying the letters are appropriate, and the lighting is tasteful. As for Sign 3, she would approve the variance if the applicant can work out a deal with State DOT. She would also like to see Sign 3 at an allowable size. Mr. Means agreed with Ms. Thompson, saying Sign 2 is tasteful. Following a question from Mr. Morreale, Mr. Mazzocone said he has no intention of changing or altering Sign 2 as proposed, if granted the variance. Regarding concerns over the proliferation of signage, Mr. Mazzocone said signs 2 and 3 are completely different; Sign 3 is his only sign on Route 89, while Sign 2 would be located 75 feet up the hill from the roadway and is more of a scenic place marker for Taughannock. I do not think it is polluting Route 89, he said. Mr. Tselekis initiated a discussion regarding the if -then scenario of both signs: Sign 2 is currently not an extra sign; however, that changes if Mr. Mazzocone purchases the right of way for Sign 3 and the right of way is then incorporated into the full parcel and the variance granted. That would make Sign 2 a second parcel sign, which is above the allowable number. Mr. Mazzocone stressed how essential it is for his business to have a sign on the corner of Route 89 and Gorge Road. Ms. Kiley said there are two issues to consider: the Town does not allow signs in the right of way, and the DOT does not allow off -premise signs on scenic byways. Mr. Howarth added that any grandfathered sign in a DOT right of way cannot be replaced. Asked if he had approached the State DOT about purchasing the right of way for Sign 3, Mr. Mazzocone said he is looking for clarity and has not proceeded with the DOT because he wanted to get through the variance process with the Town first. The Route 89/Gorge Road sign is the most important for his business. Mr. Tselekis said the Town would be on shaky legal ground if the BZA denied the variance request for Sign 2 by citing it as a second sign. Mr. Howarth offered that the current sign at Gorge Road and Route 89 may be illegal, since a wrapper was added to it. If the sign were illegal, Mr. Mazzocone said, he would remove it tomorrow. A motion was put forth to deny the variance, ultimately spurring further deliberations about how to address signs 2 and 3 in the same resolution. Could these issues be resolved if Sign 3 were called a directional sign? Ms. Austin asked. Citing Sign 3 as the most important, she suggested the variance for Sign 3 be approved on the condition of approval from the DOT. Both Ms. Thompson and Mr. Means liked this idea. Discussion ensued regarding appropriate resolution language. Ms. Thompson MADE the MOTION to grant the variance for Sign 3, and Mr. Morreale SECONDED the MOTION as follows: The BZA reviewed the record and weighed the benefits to the Applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variances are granted by considering the five statutory factors. Benefit sought by applicant is to install sign #3, a freestanding sign. The zoning allows one freestanding sign with a height limit of 15 feet and area limit of 24 square feet. The proposed height of 14.9 feet is below the limit, however, the proposed area is 104.4 square feet is above the area limit. Board of Zoning Appeals 1 3 August 22, 2017 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variances. The proposed sign would not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood nor be a detriment to nearby properties. Sign #3 would replace the existing sign at the intersection of Gorge Rd and Taughannock Blvd, and would be of a similar size. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than area variances. Yes, the sign size could be reduced and still provide advertising for the business and be within the zoning limitations. 3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial. Yes, the sign area of 104.4 square feet versus the allowed 24 square feet is more than 4 times the allowed area and is very substantial, but it is still less than the size of the current sign in that location. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Sign #3 will not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions. It replaces an existing sign. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Yes, the difficulty is self-created. The sign could be reduced in size. 6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals concludes as follows, the proposed sign would not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood, the sign could be reduced in size, it will not have an adverse effect on the physical environmental conditions, and the difficulty is self-created, therefore the benefits to the applicant outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. For the reasons set forth above, and upon the evidence, law and facts, the BZA hereby grants an area variance requested by the applicant for sign #3, subject to the following condition: That the applicant acquire title to the property on which the sign is located from the New York State Department of Transportation and provide proof thereof in the form of a copy of the Deed and the recording receipt from the Tompkins County Clerk's Office to the Zoning Officer of the Town before installation of the sign. Secondly, that the sign is in compliance with applicable state rules and regulations or receives approval by the applicable state authority. Prior to the vote, Mr. Howarth said he would support the variance request for Sign 3 but not Sign 2. It is an either/or situation. Board of Zoning Appeals 1 4 August 22, 2017 The vote was as follows: Mr. Tselekis AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Means AYE Mr. Morreale AYE Ms. Thompson AYE Result: Variance granted Resolution for Sign 2 variance Mr. Morreale MADE the MOTION to deny the variance request for Sign 2, and Mr. Howarth SECONDED the MOTION as follows: The BZA reviewed the record and weighed the benefits to the Applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variances are granted by considering the five statutory factors. Benefit sought by applicant is to install sign #2, a freestanding sign, on Tax Parcel Number 14.-1-11 (Parcel 1). The zoning allows freestanding signs with a height limit of 15 feet and area limit of 24 square feet. The proposed height is below the limit at 6 feet, however, the proposed area is 133.5 square feet: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variances. The proposed sign would be incorporated in a new retaining wall below the Inn. It does appear that the sign would produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood because it would contribute to too many signs in the area and produce visual clutter. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than area variances. Sign #2 is proposed to call attention to Taughannock as a decorative feature on a retaining wall. If limited to 24 square feet, the text would not be legible from the roadway or park land to the east. The applicant already has approval for sign 3 to serve that same purpose. The applicant has not provided evidence for the usefulness or necessity of the sign. 3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial. The sign area of 133.5 square feet versus the allowed 24 square feet is more than 5 times the allowed area and 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. Board of Zoning Appeals 1 5 August 22, 2017 The applicant plans to build a retaining wall to replace an existing, failing stone wall. The addition of the word "Taughannock" would not impact the physical or environmental conditions. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty is self-created. The applicant could indicate the business with a smaller sign. 6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals concludes as follows, that the addition of the sign would create an undesirable change and add to the proliferation of signs and visual clutter, the benefit by the applicant can be sought by other means, the requested variance is substantial, and the alleged difficulty is self-created, although the sign would not have an adverse impact on the physical environment conditions, therefore the benefits to the applicant do not outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. For the reasons set forth above, and upon the evidence, law and facts, the BZA hereby denies the area variance requested by the applicant for square footage and for sign #2. The vote was as follows: Mr. Tselekis AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Means NAY Mr. Morreale AYE Ms. Thompson NAY Result: Motion passes, Variance denied Resolution for Sign 6 variance Mr. Tselekis felt this sign was necessary, considering the driveway. Mr. Howarth agreed, saying it will not be in full view of Route 89, but asked why the proposed sign is so large. Mr. Mazzocone said the directional sign will incorporate listings for current as well as future buildings. The sign is also consistent with one located across Gorge Road. The sign's letters will be 4 inches in height. Mr. Morreale MADE the MOTION to grant the variance for Sign 6, and Mr. Means SECONDED the MOTION as follows: The BZA reviewed the record and weighed the benefits to the Applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variances are granted by considering the five statutory factors. Benefit sought by applicant is to install sign #6, a business directional sign, on Tax Parcel Number 14.-3-18.2 (Parcel 3). The zoning allows business directional signs with a height limit of 6 feet and area limit of 6 square feet. The proposed height is 9.0 feet and area is 24.8 square feet: Board of Zoning Appeals 1 6 August 22, 2017 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variances. The proposed sign would not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood nor be a detriment to nearby properties. There is an existing sign at approximately the same location. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than area variances. The applicant could reduce the size of the sign. by reducing or eliminating the Inn name and symbol. 3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial. The height variance of 9 feet versus the allowed 6 feet is substantial. The area of the sign of 24.8 square feet versus the allowed 6 square feet is four times the allowed area and 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. The proposed sign will not impact the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood and is aesthetic. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty is self-created. The directional information on sign #6 could be accomplished within the allowed height and area requirements. 6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals concludes as follows, that there will not be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood, the benefit could be achieved by other methods, the height and area limit are substantial, the sign will not have a physical environmental effect on the neighborhood, and the difficulty is self -create, therefore the benefits to the applicant outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. For the reasons set forth above, and upon the evidence, law and facts, the BZA hereby grants area variances requested by the applicant for height and square footage for sign #6. The vote was as follows: Mr. Tselekis AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Means AYE Mr. Morreale AYE Ms. Thompson AYE Board of Zoning Appeals 1 7 August 22, 2017 Result: Variance granted Mr. Mazzocone said he was sad that the Taughannock sign variance was not granted. The BZA cited visual clutter and claimed that the sign was not in the spirit of the nearby park, but the Park office liked the sign and supported it, he said. Mr. Means MADE the MOTION to accept the July 19, 2017 meeting minutes, and Ms. Thompson SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was carried, 4-0, with Mr. Howarth abstaining from the vote. At! Zoning Update Mr. Howarth provided a brief review of the BZA's previous involvement as stakeholders in ongoing ag zoning updates led by the Town's Zoning Update Steering Committee (ZUSC). The BZA had passed resolutions providing input, and other stakeholder groups had as well, including the Planning Board, Town Conservation and Sustainability Advisory Committee, and the Ag Committee. As recently as a few days ago, none of the stakeholder groups had heard back from ZUSC, which last night had reviewed a draft ag zoning document that appeared to reflect little input from stakeholders. Ultimately, ZUSC did not vote on the document, but instead has decided to again invite board liaisons to meet and discuss ways to proceed with the ag zoning rewrite. BZA members spent 30 minutes having a general discussion regarding the ag zoning draft. Mr. Howarth MADE the MOTION to adjourn the meeting, and Mr. Morreale SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Louis A. DiPietro II on September 11, 2017.