Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-01 TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning .Board of Appeals June 1 ", 2010 Members Presents Chair Oers Kelemen, Thomas Quinn , Mark Maybury, Absent: Flint Brann Excused : Natan Huffman , Others Present : Dave Sprout - Zoning & Code Enforcement, Recording Secretary - Joy Foster, Kristin Gutenberger ZBA Attorney for Randy Marcus Aunlicants : Nelson Hogg and Pat Doyle, Sandro D ' introno Town Residents : Raymond Clark, Carolyn Clark, Wayne Armstrong y N Meeting called to order at 7 :35PM. Agenda : Dandy Ntini Mart at 775 Fall Creck Road, sign variance and interpretation . 8' D dow Nelson & Shirley Hogg at 289 Bone Plain Road, area variance for it barn/garage closer than 70 feet � 0 from the center of the road at their home. Oers : Reods the Public Notice PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Dandy Mini Mart at 775 Fall Creek Road, Town of-DUdeg for an area variance for relief for a Lighted " Changing Sign" to remain also appealed, total quantity of signs and is appealing Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance Article ITV Signs to do so . SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesday June 1st, 2010 at 7 :30 PM prevailing time at the Dryden Town Hall, 93 East Main St. Dryden NY, at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard . Persons may appear in person or by agent. Individuals with visual , hearing or manual impairments and requiring assistance should contact the Town of Dryden at 607 -844- 8888 x 216 at least 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Next case : PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Nelson and Shirley Fogg of 289 Bone Plain Rd . Town of Dryden for an area variance to construct a detached barn/ garage structure closer than 70' from the center of the road at their home and are appealing Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance Article 8 Section 8044 to do so . SAiD HEARING will be held on Tuesday June 1st , 2010 at 7 :45 PM prevailing time at the Dryden Town Hall , 93 East Main St. Dryden NY, at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard . Persons may appear in person or by agent. 6- 1 -2010 ZBA- Minutes DWI' Mini Iviart & Hogg ® Individuals with visual, hearing or manual impairments and requiring assistance should contact the Town of Dryden at 607-844- 8888 x 216 at least 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. We will be hearing the cases in reverse order as the Hogg 's case will be much quicker than the Dandy Mitzi Mart. have to wait till published hearing time of 7.45 Pt19 to give the residences a chance to be heard.. . . Oers to applicant: Mr. Hogg, don 't think. I have anything terribly new), what we are trying to do is build a. pole barn that will serve as a workshop and garage. Raymond Clark: i am Mr. Hogg's neighbor anti we are fine with what they want to do. Tom Quinn: I have driven by this place and have no questions. Have we heard froth anyone in the neighborhood? Joy : We have heard nothing front the community, Oers : to ZBA asks for their general feeling. All agree a pretty straightforward project and no further questions . Oers: To public are there anymore Oers : We will now read the 5 questions and start our findings not giving our final motion until 7.451'M. Board will address the Area Variance Questions A- E A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: No because this building would.. be the same distance qff the road as the house. ✓lotion made by : Mark Second : Tom All in favor Be IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD, FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Because the site to the west of the house is constrained by a slanting NYSEG easement 15f1, , existing ancient sugar maples and a lilac hedge that most likely dates from an old barn on. the site. Applicant wishes to preserve t}tese features by placing the barn to the west of the lilac hedge. They also believe this can be done by siting the barn. at the saute distance from the roar). as the house (approx. 63 ft. front center Iine of the road). Siting the barn in the area to the east of the house also endangers ancient sugar purples but would necessitate rernoving a wooded area that presently buf/er.s the house f'rorn the neighbors, Although it might be possible to build behind the house it would destroy the present view of fields and hills and it would necessitate cis the construction of a very long driveway. 2 Motion made by : Turn Secoiid : Mark All in favor C , IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL , THE BONING BUARZ] OF APPEALS FiPFUS AS FOLLOWS : Yes, it is substantfoI howerxer u)p find it to be Pjrelprjunt. Motion made by : Oers Second : 'Tom All in faver D4 IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTVICT. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : PerrraiLUng tlr.[s rmriance wild help protect and preserve severud Frudure spruce trees, a very fild lVew, hedge and at. least one ancient. sugar maple that aordd have to be rernoued if the bam cvc;re set buck i farther and co sequent2y, closer to the house to satisfy the BYSEG easement Motion inade by : Tons Second : Oers All in favor E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes! Mot-ton made by : Oers Second : Mark All in favor Ocrs : .[t is now 7: 46 has anyone crime in who wishes to make a comment on this hearing before we close to the public for diseussionP Any o (her input? 0ers : We now it-'ill make a molioa to adol-71 the rndin s for queslions A -Lr'- Mark makes a motion : that we adopt the findings that we have previously discussed. Second : Torn All in favor 7A3 Variance Granted , conbratulationst Tom: ]leads the Public Notice THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT/ NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEAR SECT10N NY RR 612 Section 617. -c (12) & ( 13) 3 This request is also exempt from 239 L M General Municipal Review. Tom moves that we grant tlic variance, Second . Mark All in favor 7 : 50 Variance Granted , congratulations ' Ocrs : We have already into public record the public notice for the nerd care (Dandy .-Wini Mart) do you the applicant have anything you w. ovid like to add? Applicant S and Roo : I hope I undersland.juv what the issues are, is itjusl " the ,floshing sign " ? Dave Sprout: Code Enforcement [office in place for Henry Slater tonight : The issues cJre the Height of th6 signs and the amount of sigav along with the flashing sign, S and re ; Did the issues ari,ye froin when the signs were rebranded in 2008 Dave : When lheflashing ,sign went asp that ILs what triggered the research into the propeolyL Tom : Part of A) issue is that the signs have been there f6r .17ome fime, they ivejrle Just never really looked at and determined to be too tall, no one ,ruin anything and it seemed toJust sort of be OK I assume with the addition In the hWlding it has now made everything more viryWe and when you are looking at property, it occur.s ire the inspector that "gee not only have they added a flashing sign) which rr one .small part qf this issue, just ui? rout e veayrfldng there is non -confor in& brat is part of the issue thal needs ho be dunked at and some delerrrrirzatiotts made. Tom : Igo by the mart all the time and it Is right out there, it deflnitely catches your, eye, but it does take you hao some zoning ierritory- Sandro . i e be) ught the ,vtore about 5years ago, and we have nal added anything to it, we did add the LED sign, Tom : I have ,Yeen your business and like the look and the charges that you have improved on bui you have rain up on some zoning issues and that is what the ZBA is here to inletprei and to help you arrive al a solution to the issue . Kr vtcn . Firsi you need to mcrke ca deferm inai ion whether or not the sign is subject to section 1503. I beliciee it is a blinking sign, Tom : Feels it is a blinking sign too, andro : If that is an issue `" tire blinking sign " we can make it a constant sign, Tom : refers to Dare wasnovvski .s letter. (:4ttachecl) LBA Board aad attorney ; lalks about the easiest way or the applicant to apply. A trorney helps F the Board be clear on what they need to do to for 1werpretation ofxthe sign ordinance. As the Joy Foster From : Dan Kwasnowski ent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 11 : 43 AM To : Joy Foster Cc : Dryden Supervisor; Dave Sprout; Ed Marx; Randall B . Marcus Subject: ZBA Hearing June 1st, Dandi Mini Mart Joy, Please pass this along to the ZBA . Where did the time go? Concerning the Dandi Mini Mart appeal (is it an appeal or an interpretation ?), of the town's long established sign regulations I offer the following to hopefully inform the ZBA 's decision. The Dandy Mini Mart near Me Lean recently went through some renovations. During that process, although their proposals met the Building Code, the property had long been out of compliance with the town 's sign regulations . It would have been preferable to require conformance before issuing the permit, but here we are . I have reviewed Mr. Slater's letter of April 28 , 2010 and have some issues with his determinations as such : Square Footage : Mr. Slater claims that commercial properties are allowed 40 square feet (x2) or 25 % of the facade according to Table 1 . I don't read this as an either or proposition. It is stating that the sign may not exceed 25% of the facade of the building. So , if the facade of the building were 160 square feet, then a 40 square feet sign would acceptable. I can see where the second item in the table, b . Retail Business in a shopping center does *be tipulate that in no case shall the sign exceed 16 square feet on the facade . i would ask that the ZBA first make a clarification on this issue , as that is the role ofthe ZBA . Overall signage : Mr. Slater has described very well the overall glaring non conformance with the town 's limit on signage . This approach is often taken by corporate formula businesses who often locate on busy commercial thoroughfares where there is significant competition for catching drivers attention . This approach of course only adds to the chaos of these areas and is often self defeating. But, the location in consideration will never be that conuncrcially developed, there is absolutely no need for the amount of signage that they have, it can't possibly affect they amount of business they receive. LED signs : LED signs are a hot topic these days . Mr. Slater is wrong when he claims the sign does not flash . That is how the message changes, each individual Light Emitting Diode turns on or off: The sign certainly can flash . And the appearance of movement is the smile as movement. I would recommend that the ZBA deny the LED sign and ask the Planning Board to examine the issue in depth and make a recommendation to the Town Board . As the law reads now, it is not an acceptable sign. Article 15 Section 1500 specifically spells out " . . . and prevent installations which are distracting and hazardous to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. " The orientation of tine LED sign is distracting, and these signs have been entified as a potential traffic hazard . The entire text of section 1503 reads : ANY illuminated sign or lighting device shall employ only lights emitting ga light of constant intensity, and NO signs shall be illuminated by or contain flashing, intermittent, rotating, or i moving light or lights. In no event shall an illuminated sign or lighting device be so place or directed so as to permit the beams and illumination therefrom to be directed or beamed upon a public street, highway , sidewalk or adjacent premises so as to cause glare or reflection that may constitute a traffic hazard or nuisance . [emphasis 0dded] . I don 't think this portion of the law is at all unclear, and would prohibit a LED sign of the type installed at this site . Ilowever, l do concede that the town Planing Board should take a closer look at die studies surrounding these signs, and recommend a policy to the ToNvii Board . Finally, the town adopted Lora nercial Design Guidelines, and did incorporate these into the current zoning code . These are the latest board and public reviewed guidelines for development and redevelopment. There is a section on signs starting on page 7 , and reads : SIGNS Lower, monument style signs are preferred where visibility from the right-of-way is not an Issue. Preferred monument signs are low, horizontal with raised lettering set off by flowers, shrubs, or lawn. Sign materials should relate to the materials and style of the building(s) they serve. Plastic signs, banners, or flags that include loud colors, particularly colors not pertaining to the building materials or style, are discouraged. The pole element of a pole-mounted sign should be architecturally pleasing and in proportion to the sign that it carries. Ample landscaping should be provided at the base of signs. In general, multiple tenant signs are discouraged, especially where building mounted signs are easily read from the main traveled way upon Owhich the businesses front. In such cases, a single, plaza sign, denoting the name of the plaza, is preferred . eep signs simple . Too many combinations of colors, type faces and symbols can result in visual chaos. There are pictures in the guidelines document that show good and bad examples of signage . Whatever your decision, I would recommend that you condition any decision to comply with these design guidelines to the maximum extent practicable, including landscaping requirements . I hope this brief message was helpful in your determination . Dan Kwasnowski Environmcntal Phuiner 607 844 8888 Town of Drvdcn 93 East Main Strcct Dryden, NY 13053 • 2 To n mpkis . Couaty \�V DEPARTMENT- i PLANNING 121 1 ast, Court; Street w Edard C. A iarx A1CP Ithaca ,•Ne6wrYc�rl:@ 's, 14850 - Commissioner of Planning ` 'Telephone (607) 274-5560 and Public Works Fax (607) 274-SS78 May 17 , 2010 Mr. Henry Slater, Zoning/Code Enforcement Officer Town cf Dryden 93 East Main Street Dryden, NY 13053 Re : Review Pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action : Area Variance, Dandy Mini Mart, 775 Fall Creek Road , Tax Parcel No. 25 .41 9, Applicant, Gary Webster Dear Mr. Slater: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to § 239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law . The Department has reviewed the proposal , as submitted, and has determined that it has no negative inter- community, or county-wide impacts. We note that many communities around the country are choosing to adopt specific provisions to address changing LED signs . To some extent those provisions attempt to regulate both aesthetics and safety due to the distraction such signs may pose to drivers on the road . Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record . Sincerely, Edward C. Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning and Public Works • Inclusion through. A.)iversity application is now the sign is blinking but if the applicant is willing to revise it to a constant sign then you would be making a variance determination. They talk about the sign being able to change messages like once a day, not a constant flashing changing sign; that is a condition you could make ifyou grant the variance. Oers : reads into public record the letter f•orn the Tompkins County Department of Planning (Attached) : Oers : Any public comment or other letters that need to be taken into consideration ? Joy : VVe have received NO comments or letters from the public on the Dandy Mini Mart. Fat Doyle: RAPP Signs representative, we made the changes from the CITGrO to GULF in 2008 and prior• to doing .so I did submit drawing and plans to the Building Department and it was my underslanding that because the .sign was existing and tine were only doing face changes and copy changes that we were allowed to proceed with it at that point and time. The changes we did were , the CITGO id sign had a face put in it, the price sign with the bandy Sign was removed and a .smaller sign was part in short which was afoot shorter and the Dandy faces were reused in a new cabinet, the diesel price sign were removed so actually the square footage ofsign.s were reduced. All of these changes were done with the knowledge of the Town of Dryden. Everything was basically pre-existing only change was the name change. ® Attorney * The applicant is coming to the .board fir first an interpretation of.1503 zoning law in regards to lights and additionally they are applying for a variance request to increase the size and amount of signs. And it is .still an area variance. Tom : to ZBA 1 feel -under 1503 that is a blinking sign and 1 would like to see an adjustment made in its use so that it conforms with the law. For the message to stay the same and change it once in say every 24 hours. As for the height and square footage being as it already exists and in n-iy opinion it would create undue hardship and it currently is not causing any issues in the neighborhood I would assume see the ZBA grant the variance to leave as is with the condition to change the use of the LED sign. Oers : Would you call this a freestanding sign ? Dave : The thin pole is a freestanding sign. Sandro : Do I understand it right that the signage on the building is within the square footage limit g1'signage for the building faVade, it 's the freestanding signs that have the issue ? Board : Look at pictures of signs and estimate the footage of signs. Attorney : I interpret that you are only allowed 2 signs in total regardless of where they are and only either 40 square feet or 25% of the fa4ade . Tom : So this means either 40 square feet or equal to 25 % of the fii(wde of the building. 5 Attorney : Typically the ivay these are written is Its 40 sq. ftl but if the 40 sq. ft. is 50% of the front it shouldn 't be allowed it i.y its 40 sq. ft. up to it maximum of 25 sq. fl. Attorney : You get 40 sq. ft. and if it 's on the facade of the building you can 't take up more than 25% of it. ZBA : looks at and has a discussion on all the signs. Attorney : There will be 3 variances, one will be the height variance request, if its determined that it is blinking it will be a variance request f>r the blinking and the third will be an overall signage. ZBA: discusses if the sign is blinking and gets the feel of the Board. Attorney : So the first interpretation will be to make a motion that the sign would fall under: Torn : .Hoves : that the Board interpret that 1503 to cover a sign that change constantly. Second: ?Mark All in favor Tom : now applicant is requesting a variance. Attorney: 'Rie interruption. is SEQR exempt. Meeting closed to the public , Board will address the Area Variance Questions A=E A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: The Board finds that the sign in question does not produce any determent to the neighbort400d because the sign is only on during business lours, Motion made by : IIom Second : Mark All in flavor Be IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD, FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The applicant cannot otherwise achieve the desired benefit without incurring significant expense. Pat Doyle : Asks if we came to the Board and said now we have the knowledge that the LED sign is classified as a blinking sign, and we said we would like to put the sign up tuith the ideal of only changing the message .say once a day, would that be any different than if it were a static sign that you turned on and, off:? If you put that stipulation on it then it no Ionger becomes a blinking sign. it's Just a message board, does that simplify what our request is? • Attorney : That 's a good point! So now it would be the applicant changing their application and stating that the sign will only change on a daily basis , so now if the Board interprets that it falls 6 under the General Sign category then you could reduce it to 2 variances and consider the overall variance request for the overall signage. So Board needs to make an interpretation stating that the applicant has changed and modified their application. It can be just stated and read into the record. Applicant: is stating that they are amending their application and that this sign will only change on a daily basis say every morning? Attorney: State for the record that the applicant has amended their request. Mark motions : We determine that a sign that only changes once a day can fall under the General Signage law. Second : Torn All in favor Attorney: So now we are down to 2 variances one for the overall signage and one for the height. ZBA : discusses the overall amount of signage on the property. Looking at pictures and measurements, and size of fagade. And the amount of time signs has been in place (since 7996). A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : There will be no undesirable changes in the character of the neighborhood because the signs have been essentially the sane; since 1996. ® Motion made by . Mark Second : Tom All in favor Be IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD, FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Being a retail business and a gas station 40 sq. ft.. seems insufficient for the amount of signage needed for both businesses. Motion made by : Mork Second : Toni All in favor C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes it is substantial because plus or minus .300 sq, ft, is a lot more than the 40 that is allowed. Motion made bv : Mark Second : Oers All in favor • D. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 7 There will not be an adverse effect because the signs have been up for some tirne and has riot changed the nature or the neighborhood. Motion made by : Mark Second : Tom All in favor E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes! Motion made by : Mark Second : Tom All in favor Tom moves : that we grant the variance conditional on the LED .sign being changed once in 24 hours (prior to opening or at closing time). Applicant has a ►veek to submit pictures to the ToiaJn of all the signs and signage that is on the property and an approxinulte scale of the square footage of these signs and a map indicating where these signs are located Motion made by : Tom Second * Mark All in favor THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT/ NUN- FXEM1)T 6-NYCRR — Part 617- Sec. 617 .5- c-(7) ACTION UNDER SEAR SECTION Type II Action exempt from SEQR Review because it involves the construction or expansion of less than 4,000 square feet of nonresidential space which involves neither a change of zoning nor a use variance. 239 L& M Report attached — No negative intercommunity or countywide impact. Oers : Xo1v we will answer findings for the Height Variance A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Signs have been there since ttte .1990 's and have essentially remained the same. Motion made by : Tom Second : Marls All in favor B. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED • BY SOME OTHER METHOD, FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : 8 No - there is no other reasonable solution tuhich tuould be reason.abIy economically feasible. Motion made by : Tom Second : Oers All in favor C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes it is substantial because it we approximately 11 feet taller then what the Code allows . Motion made by : Mark Second : Oers All in favor D. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Will nut haue art. adverse effect its this sign has been in place for a nurnber of years there have been no neyatiue comments froth the public and a sitrtitur sign has been in place for a nutrt.ber of years. Motion made by : Mark Second : Tom All in favor E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes because the sign was changed. Motion made by : Marls Second : Tom All in favor Tom moves : that we grant the variance conditional on the LED sign being changed once in 24 hours (prior to opening or at closing time) . Applicant has a week to submit pictures to the Town of all the signs and signage that is on the property and an approximate scale of'the square footage of these signs and a map indicating where these signs are located Motion made by . Tom Second : Marls All in favor THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT/ NON - EXEMPT 9 ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION Type 1I Action exempt from SEQR — NYCRR — ® Part 617 Sec. 617.5 -c-(7), Review because it involves the construction or expansion of less than 4,000 square feet of nonresidential space which involves neither a change of zoning nor a use variance. Ref. 239 L& M — See verbiage Motion made bye Mark Second : Tom All in favor Motion made bye Mark that we grant the height variance. No conditions ! Second : Tom All in favor 9 : 20 Variance Granted , congratulations ! Meeting adjourned at 9 *20 PM • 10 TOWN OF DRYDEN DRYDEN, NEW YORK 0 a� hRYp� 93 EAST INLAIN S"IR:F,LI', DRYDEN , NEW YORK 13053 CWN o. DRYp (007) 844-8888 eKr: 216 fax: 844-8008 T £N June 25 , 2010 Nelson and Shirley Hogg 289 Bone Plain Road Freeville, NY 13068 Re : Notice of Decision , Dryden Town Area Variance Request ZBA-06-2010 , Area Variance 289 Bone Plain Road Dear Mr. & Mrs . Hogg, Please find enclosed the Notice of Decision, resulting from the variance hearing conducted by the Dryden Toi vn Zoning Board of Appeals on "Tuesday June I " , 2010 . Please note, this is not a building permit, neither is it an authorization to fail to conform to the requirements of any other appropriate agency having jurisdiction over your project or use . The attached notice of decision is; Dryden Town Zoning authority to proceed with your proposal only . If the Zoning Board of Appeals attached any conditions to this approval , such conditions are part of the Zoning Variance and shall be conformed with . Failure to conform to any condition may cause the variance to be null and void . If you should have any questions or desire further detail , please feel free to call our office as necessary at 607-844- 8888 ext. 216 from 8 : 00am till 4 : 00pm Monday — Friday. Very truly yours, Henry M. Slater, Director of Building, Zoning and Planning Town of Dryden HMS/jmf cc : ZBA -06-2010 TOWN OF DRYDEN DRYDEN, NEW YORK �pWN w DRYp 93 EAST A4r11N STREET, DRYDEN , NEW YORK 13053 OWN � DR N (607) 844-8888 ext: 216 fax: 844-8008 K N CERTIFICATE OF ZONING COMPLIANCE This is to certify that Nelson & Shirley Hogg applied for a Dryden Town Zoning Permit for a proposed construction project described on the application for Zoning Permit No . ( 046= 2010 Z) At 289 Bone Plain Road, Freeville , NY 13068 (within the Town of Dryden ) , Tax Parcel # 29 . - 1 -9 . 111 as proposed has been reviewed and the same complies with all the applicable sections of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance as they were in effect on the date of issue . It is issued to and on behalf of the owner of record as listed above and does not contain or imply any warranty to any third party . Furthermore , it is based on the application , which was reviewed for purpose of Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance Compliance only. The holder of this certificate is hereby advised, this certificate is not a permit for construction or for occupancy. This Certificate shall remain valid for a ® period of one year only expiring one year after the date of issue . The variance being requested is an Area Variance, to build a detached barn/garage structure 63 feet from the center of the road than the required 70 feet. On June 1 , 2010 the Dryden Town Zoning Board of Appeals, (ZBA) met in session and granted this appea L Enclosed is the Notice of Decision. A building permit is required. This is not an OCCUPANCY PERMIT . Occupancy is obtained by meeting or exceeding the requirements of the appropriate attached INSPECTION SCHEDULE . This is an approval of submitted plans , and authorization to proceed with the construction phase of the project . DATE of ISSUE c BY : r/ • Henry ( Slater , Zoning Officer STATE OF NEW YORK* COUNTY OF TOMPKINS TOWN OF DRYDEN In the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE Nelson & Shirley Hogg The property located at 289 Bone Plain Road , Freeville , NY 13068 (Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 29 , 41 9 . 111 ) I , Oers Kelemen , Chairperson of the Town of Dryden ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of such Board , that the foregoing are the findings of fact and decision approved by such Board on : Dated : Dryde , New York 2010 Oers Kelemen NOTICE OF DECISION AREA VARIANCE APPLICANT: Nelson & Shirley Hogg June 25 , 2010 Chair Kelemen : PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Wearing to consider the application of Nelson and Shirley Hogg of 289 Bone Plain Rd. Town of Dryden for an area variance to construct a detached barn/ garage structure closer than 70 ' from the center of the road at their home and are appealing Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance Article 8 Section 804A to do so . SAID 1.1rARING will be held on Tuesday June 1st, 2010 at 7:45 PM prevailing time at the Dryden Town HFill , 93 East Main St. Dryden NY, at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard . Persons may appear in person or by agent. A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: No because this building would be the, same distance off the road as the house. ,Motion made by: Mark Second : Tom All in favor B. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD , FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Because the site to the west of the house is constrained by a slanting NYSE G easement 1 Sft, , existing ancient sugar maples and a lilac hedge that most likely dates front an old barn on the site. Applicant wishes to preserve these features by placing the barn to the west of the lilac. hedge. They also believe this can be done by siting the barn at the sarne distance frorn the road as the house (approx. 63 ft. frorn center line of the road)_ Siting the barn in the area to the east of the house also endangers ancient sugar maples but would necessitate renwving a wooded area that presently bu/f`ers the house from the neighbors, Although it aright be possible to build behind the house it would destroy the present view of fields and hills and it would necessitate as the construction of a very lony driveway. Motion made by: Tom Second : Mark All in favor C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes, it is substantial however we find it to be irrelevant. Motion made by : Oers Second : Porn All in favor D. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Permitting this variance wilt help protect and preserve several. mature spruce frees, a very old lilac hedge and tat least one ancient sugar- maple that tvvuld have to be removed if the barn tuere set back fard7e.r and consequently, closer to the house to satisfy the XYSE6 easement. Motion made by: Tom Second: Oers All in favor E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yest ,Motion made by: Oers Second: Mark All in favor Oers : It is now 7: 46 has anyone come in who wishes to snake a comment on this hearing before we close to the public for- discussion ? Any other input? Oers : We now ~trill ,hake a motion to adopt the findings for questions A -L. Mark males a motion : that we adopt the ftrlrlings that we hat a prenioarsly discussed Second: Tom All in favor 7 : 43 Variance Granted as applied 63 foot front yard , congratulations ! Tom: Reads the Public Notir_e TEAS VARIANCE., IS AN EXEMPT/ NON-EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION NYCRR 612 Section 617.5 —c (12) & ( 13 ) This request is also exempt from 239 L& M General Municipal Review. Tom moves that we grant the variance. Second : Mark All in favor 7: 50 Variance Granted , congratulations ! TOWN OF DRYDEN DRYDEN, NEW YORK .10�lN ,� DRD YF 93 EAST IvirVI �I SIREET. DRYDEN. NEW YORK 13053 o r4 o, DRYpF (607) 844-8888 exr. 216 far: 844-8008 T Tune 25 , 2010 Just Dandy LLC PO Box 207 Towanda , Pa. 18848 Re : Notice of Decision, Dryden To*v\oii Area Variance Request ZBA-06-2010 — Area Variance 773' Fall Creel: Road To whom it may concern , Please Find enclosed the Notice of Decision , resulting from the variance hearing conducted by the Dryden Town Zoning Board of Appeals on 'Tuesday June lu`, 2010 . Please note, this is not a building permit, neither is it an authorization to fail to conform to the requirements of any other appropriate agency having jurisdiction over your project or use. The attached notice of decision is, Dryden Town Zoning authority to proceed with your proposal only . If the Zoning board of Appeals attached any conditions to this approval, such conditions are part of the Zoning Variance and shall be conformed with . Failure to conform to any condition may cause the variance to be null and void . If you should have any questions or desire further detail, please feel free to call our office as necessary at 607444 -8888 ext . 216 from 8 : 00am till 4 :00pm Monday — Friday . Very truly yours, m Henry M . Slater, Director of Building, Zoning and Planning To «•2i of Dryden HMS/jmf cc : ZBA-06-2010 • TOWN OF DRYDEN DRYDEN , NEW YORK CoNYN of DRYpFN 93 FAS'L' IvLAI \� STItLL1', DR1'17E1�I, ��E��' YORI: 13053 KQw� o, DRYD 1y (607) 844-8888 ext: 216 fax: 844-800$ CERTIFICATE OF ZONING COMPLIANCE This is to certify that Dandy Mini Mart applied for a Dryden Town Zoning Permit for a proposed construction project described on the application for Zoning Permit No . (030-2010 Z ) At 775 Fall Creek Road , Freeville , NY 13068 (within the Town of Drydenl , Tax Parcel # 25 . = 1 -9 as proposed has been reviewed and the same complies with all the applicable sections of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance as they were in effect on the date of issue . It is issued to and on behalf of the owner of record as listed above and does not contain or imply any warranty to any third party . Furthermore , it is based on the application , which was reviewed for purpose of Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance Compliance only . The holder of this certificate is hereby advised , this certificate is not a permit for construction or for occupancy . This Certificate shall remain valid for a period of one year only expiring one year after the date of issue . The variance beingrequested is an Area Variance or relie or a Lighted .f .ff 9 "Changing Sign" to remain, also appealed total quantity of signs. This certificate is issued for the authority to keep existing lighted sign (with conditions) . On June 1st, 2010 the Dryden Town Zoning Board of Appeals, (ZBA) met in session and granted this appeal on the conditional on the LED sign being changed once in 24 hours (prior to pending or at closing time). Applicant has a week to submit pictures to the Town of all the signs and signage that is on the property and an approximate scale of the square footage of these signs and a map indicating where these signs are located. (See findings, Notice of Decision). Enclosed is the Notice of Decision. A building permit is not required. This is not an OCCUPANCY PERMIT . Occupancy is obtained by meeting or exceeding the requirements of the appropriate attached INSPECTION SCHEDULE . This is an approval of submitted plans , and authorization to proceed with the construction phase of the project. • DATE of ISSUE gs BY : Henry M . glater, Zoning Officer i STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ® TOWN OF DRYDEN In the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE Dandy Mini Mart I The property located at 775 Fall Creek Road (Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 25 . - 1 -9) I , Oers Kelemen , Chairperson of the Town of Dryden ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of such Board , that the foregoing are the findings of fact and decision approved by such Board on : Dated : Drydei , New York 0017 2010 Oe s Ke en • NOTICE OF DECISION ® AREA VARIANCE APPLICANT: Dandy Mini Mart June 25 , 2010 Chair Kelemen PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the; Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct .a Public I•Iearing to consider the application of Dandy Mini Mart at 775 Fall Creek Road , Town of Dryden for an area variance for relief for a Lighted "Changing Sign" to remain also appealed, total quantity of signs and is appealing Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance Article XV Si ns to do so. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesday June 1st, 2010 at 7 : 30 PM prevailing time at: the Dryden Town Hall , 93 Cast Maui St. Dryden NY, at which tine all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard . Persons may appear in person or by agent . Individuals with visual , hearing or manual impairments and requiring assistance should contact the Town of Dryden at 607 -844- 8888 x 216 at least 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. • A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: The Board finds that the siga in question does not produce any detertnent to the neighborhood because the sign is only on during beesiness hours. Motion made by : Tom Second : Mark All in favor Be IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD, FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: The applicant cannot otherwise achieve the desired benefit without incurring significant expense. Pat Doyle : Asks tf we came to the Board and said now we haue the knowledge that the LED sign is classified as a blinking sign, and we said we Mould like to put the sign up with the ideal of only changing the message sag once a day, would that be arty different than if it were a static sign that you turned on and off? 6f you put that stipulation on it then. it no longer becomes a blinking sign it 's just a message board, does that simplify what our request is ? Notice Of Decision June V, 2010 Dandy Mini Mart 775 Fall Creek Read Attorney: That 's a good point? So now it would be the applicant changing their application and stating that the sign will onhy change on a daily basis , so now if the Board interprets that it falls under the General Sign category then you could reduce it to 2 variances and consider the overall variance request for the overall signage. So Board needs to make an interpretation stating that the applicant has changed and modified their application. It can be just stated and read into the record. Applicant: is stating that they are amending their application and that this sign tvill only change on a daily basis say every morning? Attorney: State for the record that the applicant has amended their request. Mark motions : We determine that a sign that only changes once a dart can fall under the General Signage law. Second : Tom All in favor Attorney: So note we are down to 2 variances one for the overall signage and one for the height. ZBA: discusses the overall amount of signage on the property. Looking at pictures and measurements, and size of faipade. And the amount of time signs has been in place (since 1996). A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: • There will be no undesirable changes in the character of the neighborhood because the signs have been essentially the same since 1996. Motion trade by : Mark Second : Tom All in favor B . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD, FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Being a retail business and a gas station 40 sq. ft. seems insufficient for the amount of signage needed for both businesses. Motion made by : Mark Second : Tom All in favor C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes it is substantial becausepltas or ininws 300 sq. ft. is a lot more than the 40 that is allowed. Motion made by : Mark • Second: Oers Notice Of Decision .June 1", 2010 Dandy Mini Mart 775 F'ati Creek Road All in favor ® D. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : There will not be an adverse effect because the suns have been up for some time and has not changed tiu; nature of the neighborhood. Motion made by : Mark Second : Tom All in favor E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED . THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes! Motion made by : Mark Second : Tom All in favor Tom moves : that the grunt the variance conditional on the LED sign being changed once in 24 hours (prior to opening or at closing time). Applicant has a week to submit pictures to the Town of'all the signs and signage that is on the property and an approximate scale of the square footage of these signs and a map indicating where these signs are located. Motion made by # Tom Second : Mark All in favor THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT/ N0N - F,XL: MPT 6-NYCRR —Part 617-Scc. 617.5-c-(7) ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION Type H Action exempt from SEQR Review because it involves the construction or expansion of less than 4,000 square feet of nonresidential space which involves neither a change of zoning nor a use variance. 239I, & VI — Report attached — No negative intercommunity or county wide impact. Oers : Now we will answer findings for the Height Variance A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Signs have been there since the 1990's and !roue essentially remained the saute. • Notice Of Decision June 1 ", 2010 Dandy Mini Hart 775 Fall Creek Road Motion made bv: Tom Second : Mark All in favor B. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD, FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : No - there is no other reasonable soltction. which would be reasonably econonticalht feasible. Motion made by : Tom Second : Oers All in favor C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes it is substantial because it cue approximately 11 feet taller then what the Code allows. Motion made by : Mark Second : Oers All in favor D. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS • FOLLOWS: 14411 not have an adverse effect as this sign has been in place for a number of years there lacrue been nu negatiue comments from the public and a similar sign has been in place for a number of Jeers. Motion made by : Mark Second : Tom All in favor E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes because the sign was changed Motion made by : Mark Second : Tom All in favor Tom moves : that ►see grant the variance conditional on the LEI_) .sign being changed once in 24 hours (prior to opening or at closing time). Applicant has a ►veek to submit pictures to the Tolvn of*all the signs and signage that is on the property and an approximate scale of the square footage of these signs and a map indicating where these signs are located. Motion made by: Tom Notice Of Decision June 1 ", 2010 Dandy Mini Mart 775 Fall Creek Road Second : Mark All in favor THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT/ NON- EXEMPT ACTION UNDER S +' QR SECTION Type iI Action exempt from SEQR — NYCRR —Part 617 Sec. 617.5-c-(7) Review because it involves the construction or expansion of less than 4,000 square feet of nonresidential space which involves neither a change of zoning nor a use variance. Ref. 239 L& M — Report attached — No negative intercommunity or countywide impact. Motion made by: Mark Second : Tom All in favor Motion made by: Mark that we ;rant the height variance. No conditions ! Second : Tom All in favor 9 : 20 Variance Granted, congratulations ! Meetiag adiourned at 9 :20 PM Notice Of Decision June 1 ''`, 2010 Dandy Mini Mart 775 Fall Creels Road Tompkins County DEPARTMENT OF PLANNINGG 121 East Court Street Edward C. Marx , A1CP Ithaca, New York 14850 Commissioner of Planning Telephone (607) 274.SS60 and Public Works Fax (607) 274-5578 May 17 , 2010 Mr. I•lenry Stater, Zoning/Code Enforcement Officer ToN0 n: e Drjd `. n 93 East Main Street Dryden , IVY 13053 Re : Review Pursuant to § 239 -1 and -in of the New York State General Alunicipal Law .fiction : Area Variance, Dandy Mini Mart, 775 hall Creek Road , Tax Parcel No . 25.4 -9, Applicant, Gary Webster Dear 1%•4r. Slater : • This letter acknowledges your referral of' the proposal identified above for review and corrunent by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to § 239 - 1 and - m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal , as submitted, and has determined that it has no negative inter- community, or county-wide impacts . We note that many communities around the country are choosing to adopt specific provisions to address changing LED signs . To some extent those provisions attempt to regulate both aesthetics and safety due to the distraction such signs may pose to drivers on the road . Please infOrM us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record . Sincerely , Edward C. Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning and Public Works Inclusion through cDiversity Joy Foster From : Dan Kwasnowski Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 11 : 43 AM To: Joy Foster Cc : Dryden Supervisor; Dave Sprout; Ed Marx; Randall B . Marcus Subject: ZBA Hearing June 1st, Dandi Mini Mart Joy, Plcase pass this along to the ZBA . Where did the time go '? Concerning the Dandi Mini ltlart appeal ( is it an appeal or an interpretation?) , of the town' s long established sign regulations I otter the following to hopefully inform the ZBA 's decision . The Dandy Mini Mart near Mc Lean recently went through some renovations . During that process , although their proposals met the Building Code, the property had long been out of compliance with the town's sign regulations . It would have been preferable to require conformance before issuing the pennit, but here we are . I have reviewed Mr. Slater's letter of April 28 , 2010 and have some issues with his determinations as such : Square Footage : Mr. Slater claims that commercial properties are allowed 40 square feet (x2) or 25 % of the facade according to Table 1 . 1 don ' t read this as an either or proposition . It is stating that the sign may not exceed 25 % of the facade of the building . So , if the facade of the building were 160 square feet, then a 40 square feet sign would sbe acceptable. I can see where the second item in the table, b . Retail Business in a shopping center does tipulate that in no case shall the sign exceed 16 square feet on the facade. I would ask that the ZBA first make a clarification oil this issue, as that is the role of the ZBA . Overall signage : Mr. Stater has described very well the overall glaring non conformance with the town 's limit on signage . This approach is often taken by corporate formula businesses who often locate on busy commercial thoroughfares where there is significant competition for catching drivers attention . This approach of' course only adds to the chaos of these areas and is often self deteating . But , the location in consideration will never be that commercially developed , there is absolutely no need for the amount of signage that they have, it can't possibly affect they amount of business they receive , LED signs : LID signs are a hot topic these days . Mr. Slater is wrong when he claims the sign does not flash . That is how the message changes, each individual Light Emitting Diodc turns on or off. 'I'he sign certainly can flash. And the appearance of movement is the same as movement . I would recommend that the ZBA deny the LED sign and ask the Planning Board to examine the issue in depth and make a recommendation to the Town board . As the law reacts now, it is not an acceptable sign . Article 15 Section 1500 specifically spells out " . . . and prevent installations which are distracting and hazardollS to vehicular or pedestrian traffic . " �File orientation of the LED sign is distracting, and these signs have been V.entified as a potential traffic hazard . ! he entire text of section 1503 reads : ANY illuminated sign or lighting device shall employ only lights emitting 1 light of constant intensity ; and NO sighs shA be illuminated by or contain flashing, intermittent , rotating, or 1 moving light or lights. In no event shall an illuminated sign or lighting device be so place or directed so as to permit the beams and illumination therefrom to be directed or beamed upon a public street , highway, sidewalk or adjacent premises so as to cause glare or reflection that may constitute a traffic hazard or nuisance . (emphasis added) . I don ' t think this portion of the law is at all unclear, and Would prohibit a LID sign of the type installed at this site , However, I do concede that the town Planing Board should take a closer look at the studies surrounding these signs , and recommend a policy to the 'fown Board , Finally, the town adopted Commercial Design Guidelines , and did incorporate these into the current zoning code . These are the latest board and public reviewed guidelines for development and redevelopment . There is a section on signs starting on page 7 , and reads : SIGNS Lower, monument style signs are preferred where visibility from the right-of-way is not an issue . Preferred monument signs are lov+, horizontal with raised lettering set off by flowers, shrubs, or lawn . Sign materials should relate to the materials and style of the buildings) they serve. Plastic signs, banners, or flags that include loud colors, particularly colors not pertaining to the building materials or style, are discouraged. The pole element of a pole-mounted sign should be architecturally pleasing and in proportion to the sign that it carries. Ample landscaping should be provided at the base of signs. In general, multiple tenant signs are discouraged, especially where building mounted signs are easily read from the main traveled way upon which the businesses front. In such cases, a single, plaza sign, denoting the name of the plaza, is preferred . iseep signs simple. Too many combinations of colors, type faces and symbols can result in visual chaos. There are pictures in the guidelines document that show good and bad examples of signage . Whatever your decision , I would recommend that you condition any decision to comply with these design guidelines to the maximum extent practicable , including landscaping requirements . I hope this brief message was helpful in your determination . Dan Kwasnowski Vnvironmental i' lann:r 607 844 8888 Town of Dryden 93 East Again SL[CCL Dryden , NY 13053