Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-12- 20i U Board Members Present: Other Elected Officials: Other Town Staff: PUBLIC HEARING BILLBOARD MORATORIUM TB 12 -20 -00 TOWN OF DRYDEN TOWN BOARD MEETING December 20, 2000 Supv Mark Varvayanis, Cl Ronald Beck, Cl Thomas Hatfield, Cl Charles Hatfield, Cl Deborah Grantham Bambi L. Hollenbeck, Town Clerk Mahlon R. Perkins, Town Attorney Henry Slater, Zoning & Code Enforcement Officer Supv Varvayanis opened the public hearing at 8:10 a.m. and Town Clerk read the notice of public hearing published in The Ithaca Journal. John Reid of Park Outdoor Advertising requested that the Town Board consider not extending the moratorium and act on the permits that were applied for before the moratorium was in effect. Cl T Hatfield noted that the Board had a final report from George Frantz dated December 15 and that it was foolish to expend funds and then not have time to absorb it. The �- moratorium is for 60 days and he does not anticipate it would be extended any fruther than that. Cl T Hatfield asked Mr. Reid whether he had seen the report (he had) and asked Mr. Reid whether the recommended sizes of signs work from an industry point of view. Leslie Richards stated that current zoning allows for 160 square feet and they have opted to go with a smaller size, 12' by 12'. Six by twelve is an industry standard. While they would prefer to sell it as a 12' by 12', in the event that it was not public service faces in the size of 6' by 12' would be used (2) so that the space would be occupied. Mr Reid stated screening and planting would not work, as a person sitting at street level looking at the sign would not see it. Cl T Hatfield explained that the interest in screening and buffering was mainly to soften the aesthetics of the superstructure and asked what they would recommend as an alternative to what Mr. Frantz has recommended. Mr. Reid stated it could be done on a lower profile. The company usually contracts with the property owner for a small space and more space will be required to accommodate screening. L Richards stated another concern with screening is that in a manufacturing zone you generally don't have a residence next door to protect from light, etc. Cl T Hatfield noted that there are pre - existing homes in all the Town's manufacturing districts. He has seen billboards screened in other parts of the northeast and it seems to work well in screening the superstructure. Mr Reid stated that any signs they erect now are a single pole structure. Page 1 of 6 TB 12 -20 -00 Mr Reid noted that all their current signs are State permitted and any new signs would • also be State permitted. Their current signs are in industrial zones. They do not want to put signs in someone's front yard; the sites were chosen from a market standpoint. Cl Beck stated that perhaps trees weren't necessary for screening, perhaps with a single pole you wouldn't have to do anything. Atty Perkins suggested a colored pole and pointed out that it would be necessary to determine how screening would apply to existing signs. Atty Perkins stated the issue today was whether to extend the moratorium in order to consider these issues. Cl T Hatfield felt that whether the signs were single poles and whether they required screening was a legitimate issue. L Richards is concerned about screening affecting the angle of view as drivers go by. Cl T Hatfield stated he had assumed screening would be low- growth evergreens. Mr Reid stated that a buffer 30 feet wide would present a problem. They lease sign space from an owner as a small piece of property. They put a pole in the ground and a sign above and don't bother them anymore except to access the sign. The owner would now have to give up 300 square feet of property. Atty Perkins stated that would have to be negotiated with the property owner. Cl T Hatfield stated that is a contractual arrangement between Reid and the property owner, and if the Board deems it is in the community's best interest to impose these regulations, then that will be come part of the cost of doing business. The community will have advertising that is of some value and is of some value to the advertiser, and the signs will be more acceptable to the community. He thinks screening of some sort will become part of the • package, but how and what still needs to be determined. Cl T Hatfield would like ZO Slater to look at the study and report to the Board with respect to enforcement issues and Atty Perkins to report with respect to legal aspect of it. Atty Perkins stated this is a legislative decision. The Board needs to decide where it wants to go, and then it can be addressed from a legal point of view. Cl C Hatfield asked how many of Park's signs currently in the Town are single pole structures. There are no single pole signs in the Town. Cl Beck stated that from a property owner's perspective, when the site is negotiated it would be a source of pride to the landowner to know that the sign was going to be screened and maintained, and that it probably wouldn't affect the negotiating very much except that more property would be needed. Cl C Hatfield asked Mr. Reid if they didn't already maintain their signs as far as trimming growth around them, and stated they probably wouldn't be doing much more than they are doing now. Mr. Reid replied that in the event the sign is on a state highway he has to go through a permitting process and it costs about $3,000 to get the permit. If the State is satisfied with the job, he'll get about $2,500 back. These fees are imposed on a per sign basis. Cl Beck stated it seemed the Board had no choice but to extend the moratorium. A study has been done and recommendations made that the Board needs to review. It is an informative study. Page 2 of 6 TB 12 -20-00 Supv Varvayanis asked how many seconds a person needs to read a sign and Mr. Reid replied approximately seven seconds. There were no further comments and Supv Varvayanis closed the public hearing at 8:30 a.m. The board meeting was formally called to order. Cl Beck told Mr. Reid that if he had any information or documentation he would like to submit, such as industry concerns, the board would take it into consideration. Cl C Hatfield suggested that Mr. Reid consider the screening aspect and make suggestions. Mr. Reid - Generally if you are trying to cover the visibility of the super structure, I see what he was trying to do but, he didn't take into the process the fact that there is a 15 foot maximum height. If you are going to have a 160 square foot sign, and it doesn't really state how that 160 square foot has to be, that would put you at having to have the bottom of your sign at least 8 feet off the ground. That would give you a 7 foot high sign, 7 x 23 to get the 160 square feet if you want to use it all. Signs don't necessarily have to be so far off the ground. They should have some clearance from the ground obviously. You've got to be careful that you don't wind up putting it right down on the ground. Generally a 15 foot height is probably a little bit shy of the industry standards. Normally we have to get up a little higher to get ground clearance and everything. Cl T Hatfield - I think Ron's suggestion is good. If the regulations are ineffective for you and the public, it doesn't work for anybody. If you guys want to give us some responses other than verbal that we can study and try to come up with a good modification, then everybody wins. I think you probably have a sense by now that screening is going to be an important • piece of what I think we're going to do here. I'd certainly like to hear from you not only with respect to how you might screen a superstructure, existing as well as new ones, and what type of elements should go in it in terms of slow growing evergreens or hedging or whatever you think. It's going to be an ongoing maintenance cost, so I think it's worth taking a look at that and giving us some feedback now as opposed to later. ZO Slater stated he would be particularly interested in Mr. Reid's thoughts on the existing signs. Cl T Hatfield asked Mr. Reid to submit his response soon. Cl Beck asked Mr. Reid to address the lighting issues also. RESOLUTION #285 - ADOPT LOCAL LAW #6 OF 2000 BILLBOARD MORATORIUM Cl C Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby adopts the following local law placing a 60 day moratorium on the erection of billboards in the Town of Dryden, and directs the Town Clerk to file the same with the New York State Department of State: Section 1. Title. This local law shall be referred to as the Second Temporary Moratorium on the Establishment of Outdoor Advertising Billboards in the Town of Dryden. Section 2. Definition. An Outdoor Advertising Billboard" means any device, object or • building facade situated on private premises and used for advertising goods, services or places other than those directly related to the premises on which said Page 3 of 6 TB 12 -20 -00 sign is located. Section 3. Purpose. The Town of Dryden zoning ordinance was initially adopted over 30 years ago. The zoning ordinance contained certain provisions loosely regulating Outdoor Advertising Billboards. Since the adoption of the zoning ordinance, the New York Court of Appeals has ruled that local governments may regulate the time, place and manner of commercial speech (as opposed to its contents) to effectuate a significant governmental interest and the regulation of aesthetics constitutes such an interest. Current Town of Dryden zoning ordinance regulations do not prohibit Outdoor Advertising Billboards, and to many persons, such signs are aesthetically objectionable in a rural town and if misplaced, often are egregious examples of ugliness, distraction and deterioration. The Town through the Planning Board has undertaken a review of the Town Comprehensive Plan and has recently conducted a town -wide survey of residents to solicit their input on recommendations for updated local ordinances. Pending the receipt of a final draft of the Town Comprehensive Plan, the Town Board is concerned about the lack of restrictions on the placement of Outdoor Advertising Billboards in light of the Court of Appeals decisions. In order to preserve the environment and to provide for an orderly discussion of identified and yet unidentified concerns about Outdoor Advertising Billboards in a lawful, thoughtful and reasoned manner, the Town Board determines that it must declare a second, but shorter, moratorium on the establishment of any Outdoor Advertising Billboards pending a thorough review of the existing state of the law with respect to the same and the enactment of appropriate local legislation further regulating, prohibiting, or requiring the removal of the same. Since the original moratorium became effective on June 16, 2000, the Town Board has engaged the services of a consultant who has conducted a thorough review of the existing conditions that relate to Outdoor Advertising Billboards. The consultant has inventoried the Outdoor Advertising Billboards in the Town of Dryden and examined the current Town of Dryden regulations pertaining thereto. The consultant has presented two drafts of his comprehensive report to the Town Board. In addition to the inventory of and analysis of the existing regulations, the draft reports contain a thorough discussion of state and federal regulations, other approaches to regulation in New York State, a discussion of relevant court cases, a study of the effectiveness of Outdoor Advertising Billboards as a marketing tool, and recommendations for Town of Dryden regulations. The draft reports also contain a survey of other municipal regulations, a survey of Outdoor Advertising Billboard users, and illustrative examples of Outdoor Advertising Billboard designs. The report has not yet been accepted by the Town Board and no decisions have yet been made on what, if any, changes are appropriate to Town of Dryden regulations. More time is needed to finalize the report, disseminate it to the public, receive comments, and propose and enact changes, if warranted, in Town of Dryden regulations. Based on all of the foregoing it is necessary for an additional, but shorter, moratorium. Section 4. Prohibitions. No person, firm or corporation shall construct or submit any application for an Outdoor Advertising Billboard to the Code Enforcement Officer during the effective period of this moratorium. The Code Enforcement Officer shall not accept any application for an Outdoor Advertising Billboard and shall not issue any permit for the same during the effective dates of this local law. The Town Board shall not hold any public hearing on any pending applications • for Outdoor Advertising Billboards during the effective dates of this local law. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not entertain any appeal of any order, 1'.: m • • TB 12 -20-00 requirement, decision, interpretation, or determination made by the Code 40 Enforcement Officer during the effective dates of this local law if the same pertains to Outdoor Advertising Billboards. Section 5. Invalidity. The invalidity of any provision of this local law shall not effect the validity of any other provision which can be given effect without such invalid provision. Section 6. Term. This local law shall be in effect for a period of 60 days from its effective date unless sooner repealed. Section 7. Effective Date. This local law shall take effect on filing with the Secretary of State as provided by the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law. 2nd Cl Grantham Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes Supv Varvayanis stated he had received a fax from Christopher Michaels who is interested in the County Board seat recently vacated by Charlie Evans. Cl T Hatfield stated he has been approached by a few people also expressing an interest in the position. Supv Varvayanis stated that he thought it might be possible to get grant money to convert the West Dryden Community Center into a court house for the Town Court, Historic Ithaca owns the property. It is structurally sound. ZO Slater stated they had repaired the foundation to stabilize the building, but beyond that he is not aware of other work done. Cl T Hatfield suggested that be an option to be considered by the building committee. He feels that West Dryden might be a little out of the way. ZO Slater stated it would be a straight forward allowed use, but it probably would have an off street parking problem because it is a small piece of property. Supv Varvayanis stated that Reba Taylor is interested in possibly building something jointly with the Village and putting in their Police Department, Cl T Hatfield asked Supv Varvayanis if he wanted to act on January 3rd to appoint a replacement for Charlie Evans. Cl Grantham suggested that we make sure the public knows that the board is accepting resumes and set a deadline and that January 3rd was too little time. Supv Varvayanis suggested that the Board ask the applicants to come to a meeting. After discussion, it was decided to notify the public via the radio, newspaper and television asking interested persons to apply by December 28. Candidates would then be interviewed by the Board and the public at a special meeting to be held on January 4 at 7:00 p.m. Cl Grantham distributed a memo to the board and Atty Perkins concerning Jean Hoag's easement to the Town. She also gave Supv Varvayanis and Cl C Hatfield a note from a resident, Jean Schaflick, who is concerned about how slow the sewer agreement is proceeding. Jean Schaflick is a member of the Tompkins County water Resources Council and her comments were submitted to that committee. Cl Grantham passed along her comments so that the Town Board would know about community concerns about the sewer agreement. A copy of information regarding Susan Boutros' business, Environmental Associates, was distributed to the board. Page 5 of 6 TB 12 -20 -00 At 9:00 a.m. on motion made, seconded and unanimously carried, the board adjourned to executive session to discuss the employment and medical history of a particular employee. No action was taken. On motion made, seconded and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:19 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ,' // /0 Bambi L. Hollenbeck • Page 6 of 6 • TOWN OF DRYDEN TOWN CLERK'S 2000 ANNUAL REPORT RECEIPTS SPORTING LICENSES MARRIAGE LICENSES TAX SEARCH PHOTO COPIES MARRIAGE TRANSCRIPT 13,183.00 1,020.00 1000 203.75 45.00 13,177.44 34,172.00 12,434900 31497.54 11110.00 SPCA IMPOUNDMENT FEE DUPLICATE TAX RECEIPT GAMES OF CHANCE LICENSES BINGO LICENSES BINGO FEES 30 DOG LICENSES RETURNED CHECK SPECIAL PERMIT ZONING VARIANCE SITE PLAN REVIEW BUILDING FEE ZONING FEE Z.ORDINANCE BOOK SALES POSTAGE 11256.25 14,327.00 11075.00 21,735.00 10,190000 640.00 71.00 125.00 805.73 45.00 500000 500.00 155.00 17.00 TO TOTAL RECEIPTS 65,894.73 DISBURSEMENTS PAID PAID PAID PAID PAID PAID PAID TO TO TO TO TO TO TO SUPERVISOR FOR GENERAL FUND SUPERVISOR FOR PART TOWN FUND NYS DEC FOR SPORTING LICENSES COUNTY TREASURER FOR DOG LICENSES AG & MARKETS FOR DOG LICENSES NYS HEALTH DEPT FOR MARRIAGE LICENSES STATE COMPTROLLER FOR GAMES OF CHANCE LICENSES 13,177.44 34,172.00 12,434900 31497.54 11110.00 675.00 75.00 PAID TO STATE COMPTROLLER FOR BINGO LICENSES 753975 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS BAMBI HOLLENBECK, TOWN CLERK 65,894.73 JANUARY 10, 2001