Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-12-01 Graham: asks applicant if they have anything further to add? Applicant: The lighting has been modified; I was made aware after this plan was submitted that the lighting we used was not in compliance. The lighting will now come from the top of the sign with gooseneck that shines onto the sign and they are shielded, down focused and lower wattages. At the time I didn't look at the lighting regulations because this is the same sign and setup that was used when in the Village of Dryden, so I didn't think it would be any different. Also one of the reasons that we would like to use that sign is because we just bought that sign and it cost $3000 and we certainly didn't expect to be closed for over a quarter of our fiscal year this year and not able to make an income due to COVID-19. So, with the move home and no income and the sign being a year old makes sense to use the sign. We took a big hit with the lockdown and we were worried that there may be another lockdown and we have spent well over $10, 000 with no revenue for the 3 months with the same bills and we have no more resources to fall back on, so moving our business to home was a must. And regarding the distance of the sign, I'm partially to blame because when I read the rules for measuring from the highway line, it wasn't very clear and 1 searched and couldn't find the definition of highway line. I went 3 feet beyond 1 S ' from pavement edge not realizing it meant 15 ft from the right-of-way But if we were to put it that far back it would be behind a large tree and the neighbors house, well obscured by 2 large trees and with the speed limit being 55mph with going that fast, patients have already told us they still have gone by or saw it just in time. There already is a big problem with the traffic going too fast, you did have the no passing on the road now which has helped but SS is still too fast. When people are making a left hand turn into our driveway we have actually had people wind up in our front yard because traffic is fast and crazy and our neighbor won't make a left turn into his driveway; he will drive all the way around to turn a right into their driveway. So that's part of the reason for the placement and the size of the sign it's important for sign to be seen and for safety reasons and for financial reasons as well. Graham: are there any questions or comments from the board? Curtis: My comments would be that I have been involved with Zoning stufffor over 35 years, I've taught it, I've been on boards, but I must say that I looked at this law and I couldn't find any definition of what is a street line? Applicant: I can see the I5 feet form the pavement edge because you can't have it in the right- of-way, but to push it back 30 feet that's in the middle of my yard, and that just makes no sense. Graham: They call it a highway line in the book, but nowhere does it define what that is. Curtis: so I went out to the site and I knew where the sign was but I still went right by and had to go to gas station turn around to come back and it was easier to see coming from Freeville. But I still missed it, and the purpose of the sign is not just to benefit the business owner but a benefit to the public looking or the location and the safety of traffic. I know what the law says for signs, but I found the sign pleasing and not too big. I would expect that over time people will get used to where it is, and it won't be such an issue. Slater: well 1 missed the sign completely because it was taller than what I was looking for, I was looking for something closer to the ground. Even though I knew where your house is because I was a patient in the past. So, I didn't see the sign till I turned around and came back as Ben did. Applicant: one of the reasons we put it that high was so not to obscure the view of people pulling out that's why sign is not at ground level. Kolesnikoff: I will also say that I drove from the Etna side to the Freeville side and I actually drove by it as well. Applicant: with the placement of the sign now at 15 feet from the road there still is one tree in the way, but if we push it back 15 more feet as required there are more trees. And I actually worked with the neighbor who we are good friends with and together we decided on the best place for the sign. If we have to put it back 15 more feet now the lights will intrude into neighbors' windows. So, disturbing the neighbor's bedrooms with the lighting is a concern. Graham: if there are no more comments from the board, I will read into record the letter received from a resident about the variance. Insert LETTER NEXT Graham: so, most of the concern of the letter is the lighting, but that has been resolved. Burger: there are no other comments from residents and the 239 County Review letter had no concerns or recommendations. Curtis 6:30 pm motion to close the public part of the hearing and as a board will answer the 5 questions. Second: Kolesnikoff All in favor - yes Graham: I will now get a sense of the board Slater: I had an issue with the lighting but that's been resolved. I don't find the sign at 17 feet to be obnoxious or too large or out of place especially for the traffic. And understanding their issues with their business and needing to relocate home, I would want to give them a break. I don't find any issue with the height or size of the sign, it's a nice sign in good taste and I feel I would support the sign. Kolesnikoff: I would agree with Henry, that when I drove by I found the sign to be lovely and easy to read and I didn't think it was as big as I was anticipating. I was not overwhelmed by the size. I thought the size fit in nicely. Graham: the law is IOsq ft and we are talking this sign is nearly 18 sq ft so almost double. The sign was allowed where you were in Dryden on Rt. 13. 11-23-2020 11:04 AM Dear Zoning Board of Appeals, I am a resident of the Village of Freeville, own a property that is adjacent to Tax Parcel ID # 34.-2-1.4, and am a member of the Freeville ZBA. Mr. Coburn has requested a variance for a business sign that has already been erected on this parcel in violation of Town law. I object to the sign being larger than 10 square feet and being located 3 feet from the highway line. There is no need for such a large sign in a residential area, and the property certainly has sufficient space to accommodate a properly -sized sign located at least 15 feet from the highway line. In addition, I would note that Mr. Coburn has elected to illuminate the existing sign with two high- intensity lights that are positioned at ground level and shin upwards. They not only light the sign but, because of the proximity of the sign to the road, throw bright beams into the eyes of highway drivers traveling in either direction. I know this firsthand as I commute at dark along this stretch of Route 366 regularly. I believe that these lights are in direct violation of Town law, which addresses this issue thusly: Section 903 D. 1. Illumination of any Sign shall employ only light emitting a constant intensity. No Signs shall be illuminated by or contain flashing, intermittent, rotating, or moving light. In no event shall an illuminated Sign be placed or light directed so that the illumination is directed upward resulting in light pollution, or be directed upon a Public Highway, sidewalk or onto the adjacent premises or that results in glare or reflection that constitutes a traffic hazard or a nuisance. 2. Signs shall be illuminated by a shielded light source, or sources, to restrict the area illuminated to the Sign face, and downward. The illumination of the sign needs to be addressed, as this is an issue of health and safety. The lights should be shielded and pointed downwards, and they certainly should not be aimed to shine in the eyes of highway drivers. Regards, Mike Michael L. Whalen P.O. Box 189 Freeville, NY 13068 Curtis: I have a couple of thoughts about it particularly after hearing that the entire board drove by and missed the sign. When I worked for the Village of Lansing and the sign law was 9 sq ft. but almost the entire village is 30 mph x where the commercial signs were and that worked. When dealing with variances on East Shore Dr., however, the point that was made then was the speed limit was 55. And I believe that applicant and their traffic engineer brought that up that the faster you drive the more notice you need to be able to safely slow down to make a turn. Out of all of this I would recommend that we suggest to the Planning Board that they may want to reconsider the size of the sign permitted in terms of safety where the speed limit is 55. I found the sign to be attractive and I agree with Henry about the lighting. Considering the burden on the applicant I'm struck by the number of businesses that have struggled through this Pandemic with the shutdown and being able to stay open, so I'm sympathetic to that and think the Board can and should consider that burden. So what I came to in my thinking is if you have a sign law, it's important to enforce it and for every sign you have that you allow to be larger then you are unfairly competing with other signs that are complying with the law. But where this sign is located, I don't think there will be any other signs being it's in a residential neighborhood. I'm sensitive to the fact that the applicants invested $3000 into the sign. I can't see anyway to make the existing sign smaller and if you did it would make the sign less attractive. I'm aware with zoning laws and pre-existing conditions that we try to find a way to mitigate the burden for an applicant, grandfathering some times or making provisions for amortizing so if the applicants have $3000 invested in the sign I would be inclined to the notion of giving them a reasonable amount of time to amortize that $3000. I would imagine over a period of time they will need to do some maintenance on the sign, I'm inclined to grant a variance with the size of the sign with a "sunset" date of maybe 2 years and then to re -visit it when people that use the business would be use to the new location and are used to the sign. They would of gotten their investment out of the sign and if they are re -doing it could make it smaller and or maybe the Town Board, Planning Board will have changed the sq footage of a sign in a 55 mph area. So maybe a "sunset "provision where you would re -apply for the sign permit in 2 years. As for the distance from the road goes, Ilooked at it and I couldn't imagine putting it back another 12 feet away from the road. It would make it very difficult to see. I was bothered by going through the zoning law and not being able to find a definition of highway line or street line. It struck me as confusing and the applicants stated their confusion also. So one way or another that's another area where the Town Board, Planning Board may want to review this law, as well as reconsidering having signs 30 ft off the road, when you go down the street of Freeville and the gas station sign is practically in the road and the other signs are fairly close and its what people are comfortable with. So having the sign 15 from the pavement edge makes sense. From what I have heard today from the Planning Dept. there seems to be some confusion as to the definition of what street -line means, and that's a real problem, because the applicant relied on his understanding of that term and I know for a fact its not in the Glossary. Burger: to add some clarity, section 903 does reference highway line, and the map given by the applicant does show a highway line. The Planning Dept. interprets the highway line, its not necessarily the platted what the surveyor calls the highway line but where you own out to the center line which is the case here the lot goes out to the center line the highway line then becomes the back of the ditch which we would interpret pretty tightly behind this covert. Curtis: the law should be clear so somebody could understand it and comply and should not be written in a way to interpret in several different ways. So, for the record, I think it needs to be looked at, and defined in a way anyone reading this can understand in any situation. Slater: in the old law it was always stated from the center stripe of the road, always. And everybody could always figure out where the center of the road was, whether it was the Planning Board, Planning Dept. the applicant anyone could measure it and know. Burger: that would be problematic because if we are going from the center line of Redwood Lane or Route 13 you can't apply the same benchmark measures Graham: I would have to agree with what you all have said. And with these special circumstances we are all finding ourselves in due to this Pandemic we are in sympathy to that. What bothered me the most was the height of the sign but after hearing your reasoning as to the way you did it, I understand this for visibility and safety reasons. Board reviews questions: 6: 43pm 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 does not seem out of character for that particular neighborhood, especially given the proximity of larger, much more prominent business signs. The 7.5 addition square footage of the sign is not particularly noticeable; it has minimal visual impact. Its size and location near the road are mitigated by the sign's muted color scheme, which helps it blend into the setting and prevents it from being an "eyesore." It bears noting that this home business and its sign are in a heavily trafficked 55 mph speed zone as opposed to a sleepy cul-de-sac with a lower speed zone—this fact makes it likely that a smaller sign in the required setback might be of such low visibility as to be of little use. In addition, positioning the sign within the setback would require the cutting of trees which would result in an undesirable change in the neighborhood and to the nearby properties. Motion made by: Curtis - Yes Second: Slater- Yes All in favor — Yes 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: The applicant might be able to achieve the benefits he seeks by another method, but the alternatives would likely have diminished effectiveness. In addition, the burden on the applicant of seeking an alternative would be costly and disproportional to any theoretical benefits to the community. The current bleak business environment caused by the Covid-19 pandemic has increased the financial stress placed on the applicant as well, creating unusual circumstances that warrant special consideration. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Slater- Yes All in favor — Yes C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: There is little doubt that the area variance requested is substantial, given that the size is almost twice the regulated size and the setback much less than required. But in addition to what was noted in A. and B, above, the applicant relied on his understanding of the sign law when installing/siting it. This law, which references a "highway line" was not only confusing to the applicant but to the Zoning Board. It is not defined anywhere in the law or its glossary. The lack of clarity in this aspect of the sign law helped create the situation where a substantial variance request was required. Motion made by: Graham Yes Second: Curtis - Yes All in favor - Yes 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: The sign's minimal (if any) adverse effects on the physical or environmental conditions in the district are offset by the fact that the sign contributes positively to safer traffic conditions in the neighborhood. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Graham - Yes All in favor - Yes E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: The applicant's difficulty was not entirely self-created, in that he made the investment in the sign ($3000) before he could ever have envisioned that a global pandemic would require him to shutter his business for months and then relocate it to his home—along with his sign. The confusing Town of Dryden sign law also contributed to the difficulty. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Kolesnikoff - Yes All in favor - Yes Motion made by: Curtis to classify this SEOR non-exempt Second: Slater - Yes All in favor - Yes Board does Part II and Part III of SEQR INSERT SEQR Motion made by: Curtis to authorize the Chairperson to sign SEQR on behalf of the Board Second: Slater - Yes All in favor – Yes Kolesnikoff: suggests the 55mph speed limit be pushed further out such that, when I drive into Freeville I'm going 55then the next you are going 35 then 20 then there is a school zone, how can we get this looked at? Burger: it is a big process, and the Town has taken the initiative just recently on George Rd. All we can do is request to the DOT to do a traffic study. Applicant: I feel very strongly about lower the speed limit, our house is right on the road and people fly by doing 75 – 80; there is no 55 out here. For 2 years it is taking your life in your own hands to cross that crosswalk to get your kid to school, because you park at the park and ride by the Post Office because there is no room in the parking lot and you have to walk them across in the crosswalk. Once they hit the stop sign it's like a raceway, they are doing 55 by the time they are at the crosswalk and I'm not the only parent with this concern, our PTA has brought this up at almost every meeting for the last 2 years since I have been on the PTA . So, I will go to the PTA and get a petition going on PTA letterhead and get this back to you Ray to get to the Town Board. There also are 3 bus stops, the TCAT stop, there is a lot of residential traffic. Curtis: suggests that we grant the variance to expire in 3 years. This gives applicant time to amortize their sign and investment, at which point the applicant can come backfor another variance or applicant could put in another sign that conforms. Also hopefully gives the Town time to look at their sign law and clarify the language. And maybe have a traffic study done to see if this 55mph is safe for this road. I'm concerned about their investment to the sign. The events are unusual due to the Pandemic. This is not something anyone anticipated. Also hoping Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I - Project Information Instructions for Completing Part 1 — Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part I based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1 — Project and Sponsor Information Name of Action or Project: Finger Lakes Spine & Body Works sign permit Project Location (describe, and attach a location map): 145 Main St. Freeville, NY Brief Description of Proposed Action: area variance for size and placement of sign Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Jason Coburn Address: 145 Main St. Telephone: 607-283-1280 E -Mail: jrc23@cornell.edu City/PO: State:I Zip Code: Freeville NY 1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law, ordinance, NO YES administrative rule, or regulation? If Yes, attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that ❑✓ ❑ may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no, continue to question 2. 2. Does the proposed action require a permit, approval or funding from any other government Agency? NO YES If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit or approval: ✓❑ ❑ 3. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? 6.0 acres b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? acres c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 6.0 acres 4. Check all land uses that occur on, are adjoining or near the proposed action: 5. ❑ Urban ❑ Rural (non -agriculture) ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial m Residential (suburban) ❑ Forest ❑ Agriculture ❑ Aquatic ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Parkland Page 1 of 3 SERF 2019 5. Is the proposed action, a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations? b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape. 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in, or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical Environmental Area? If Yes, identify: 8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? b. Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? c. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed action? 9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? If the proposed action will exceed requirements, describe design features and technologies: 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? If No, describe method for providing potable water: well 11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? If No, describe method for providing wastewater treatment: septic NO YES N/A ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑❑a NO YES ❑ ✓❑ NO YES ❑✓ ❑ NO YES ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ✓❑ ❑✓ ❑ NO YES MRM NO YES ❑✓ ❑ NO YES ❑✓ ❑ 12. a. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district NO YES which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or that has been determined by the ❑ 1:1Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places? b. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for ❑ ❑ archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory? 13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action, or lands adjoining the proposed action, contain NO YES wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal, state or local agency? ❑ ❑ b. Would the proposed action physically alter, or encroach into, any existing wetland or waterbody? ❑ ❑ If Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: Page 2 of 3 14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply: E] Shoreline ❑ Forest ❑ Agricultural/grasslands ❑ Early mid -successional ❑ Wetland ❑ Urban m Suburban 15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal, or associated habitats, listed by the State or NO YES Federal government as threatened or endangered? F71 ❑ 16. Is the project site located in the 100 -year flood plan? NO YES ❑ ❑✓ 17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge, either from point or non -point sources? NO YES If Yes, Z ❑ a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? ❑ ❑ b. Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems (runoff and storm drains)? ❑ ❑ If Yes, briefly describe: 18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the impoundment of water NO YES or other liquids (e.g., retention pond, waste lagoon, dam)? If Yes, explain the purpose and size of the impoundment: ❑ ❑ 19. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste NO YES management facility? If Yes, describe: 20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation (ongoing or NO YES completed) for hazardous waste? If Yes, describe: F,71 ❑ I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNO E Applica t/spo or/nal ason Coburn Date: 11/17/2020 Signature: Title: Vice President I PRINT FORM I Page 3 of 3 Agency Use Only [If applicable] Project: 1145 Main ST Date: �12-1-20 I Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 2 - Impact Assessment Part 2 is to be completed by the Lead Agency. Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part 1 and other materials submitted by the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by the concept "Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?" PRINT FORM I Pagel oft SERF 2019 No, or Moderate small to large impact impact may may occur occur 1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning [:1regulations? 2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? ✓❑ ❑ 3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? ✓❑ ❑ 1 4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the ❑ establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA)? 5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or ❑ affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? 6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate ❑ reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? 7. Will the proposed action impact existing: ✓❑ ❑ 1 a. public / private water supplies? b. public / private wastewater treatment utilities? ❑✓ ❑ 8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, ❑✓ ❑ architectural or aesthetic resources? I 9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g., wetlands, EZI 1:1l waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)? 10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage ❑✓ ❑ l problems? 11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? ✓❑ ❑ PRINT FORM I Pagel oft SERF 2019 Agency Use Only [If applicable] Project:1145 Main ST Date: 112-1-20 Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 Determination of Significance For every question in Part 2 that was answered "moderate to large impact may occur", or if there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact, please complete Part 3. Part 3 should, in sufficient detail, identify the impact, including any measures or design elements that have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact may or will not be significant. Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting, probability of occurring, duration, irreversibility, geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short- term, long-term and cumulative impacts. None ❑Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an environmental impact statement is required. Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Town Zoning Board of Appeals 12-1-20 Name of Lead Agency Date Janis Graham ZBA Chair Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (if different from Responsible Officer) PRINT FORM I Page 2 of the applicant will be able to move their business back to Rt. 13 where people are accustomed to going. The ZBA grants this variance with the following condition: Decision and Conditions While we find it important to adhere to the sign law as a general principle, we found the law to be ambiguous to the detriment of the applicant. The appropriateness of the size and location requirements in this instance is questionable, given the particular location of this home/sign —i.e. that it is in a heavily trafficked 55mph speed zone which closely borders a commercial area with businesses that have large signs along the road. In addition, the applicant faced highly unusual circumstances created by the Covid-19 pandemic: They made a major investment in a sign (intended for a location in which it would have met the size/position regulations) that he never could have anticipated needing to relocate. We thus grant this variance with this condition: In order to allow the applicant to amortize his investment in the sign, it can remain in place for 3 years after which he will either need to apply for a new Sign Permit and apply for another variance or relocate/resize the sign. We also recommend that, during this 3 -year period, the Town revisit its sign law to a) work on clarifying its terms and b) re-evaluate its appropriateness and impact on safety in high traffic/high speed limit zones. Motion made by: Curtis to Grant Variance with conditions Second: Graham- Yes All in favor - Yes Graham motions to adjourn, 7:45 PM