HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3116 - 661 Spencer Rd - Decision Letter-2-5-2019CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Zoning
Gino Leonardi, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Sign Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3116
Applicant: Larry R. Foor for Tompkins Community Action, Owner
Property Location: 661 Spencer Road
Zoning District: R -2a
Applicable Section of City Sign Ordinance: Section 272-6 B (1)
Requirement for Which Variance is requested: Size requirements of peiiuitted signs.
Publication Dates: January 31, 2019 and February 1, 2019.
Meeting Held On: February 5, 2019.
Summary: Appeal of Larry Foor on behalf of the owner Tompkins Community Action for a Sign
variance from Section 272-6 B (1), Size and Number of permitted signs. The applicant proposes to install
two additional signs on the newly constructed childcare center located at 661 Spencer Road. One sign will
be placed on the front of the building facing Spencer Road and the second sign will be placed above the
main entrance on the south side of the building. The property is located in a residential zone district where
the sign ordinance permits buildings to only have one sign with a maximum of 12 square feet in area. The
applicant has received a permit for one 10 SF sign and is requesting a variance for the two additional
signs. The sign facing Spencer Road is 94 SF and the second sign facing south is 10 SF. The two
additional signs have a total of 104 SF. The sign ordinance allows only one sign with a maximum of 12
square feet.
The property at 611 Spencer Road is an R -2a Zoning District where business signs are allowed, however
the Sign Ordinance, Section 272-18 requires that variances be granted before a sign permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: February 5, 2019.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
A letter faun the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation was received that stated: the
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation does not have any additional comments or concerns
related to the matter before the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Steven Wolf
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -I & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Tompkins County has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has deteuiiined that it has no negative
intercommunity, or county wide impacts.
Environmental Review: This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance ("CEQRO"), and State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), and is subject
to Environmental Review.
Lead Agency: The City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals did, on February 5, 2019
declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the approval of zoning
appeal # 3116, a sign variance for the property located at 661 Spencer Road in the City of
Ithaca.
Environmental Determination: The City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals, acting as
Lead Agency, on February 5, 2019, reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form
(SEAF) and determined the requested variance will result in no significant impact on the
environment.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. The
property is in two zoning districts with differing sign regulations and the sign variance is for the childcare
center in the residential zone. The size does not overpower the building and the signs are not illuminated
— so there will be no nighttime impact. The Board feels that the size and location of signage is needed for
the use. The Board finds that the size and design of the signage on the daycare building is appropriate on
the edge of this residential zone.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes.
Deliberations & Findings:
Factors Considered:
1. Size of sign:
The purpose for which the sign is erected and the distance from which the sign is intended to be read and
the character of the adjacent streets shall be taken into consideration. In all cases, the smallest sign that
will suit the purpose shall be the guide, taking into account legitimate business interests to be promoted
by the sign and the speed limits and traffic conditions on adjacent streets.
The applicant has submitted substantial evidence that this is the smallest size sign that serves the multiple
purposes of wayfmding to this building and a very public honoring of a very important person. This is a
legitimate purpose, in this case, and it is something to be encouraged as long as it is not outweighed by
negative impacts.
2. Number of letters:
A sign with few letters need not be as large as one with many letters to be seen at the same distance. The
number of letters are appropriate for the size of the sign.
The person has a long name so in order to honor the person we need to allow this many letters
3. Other signs:
The context of existing signs in the vicinity of the proposed sign shall be taken into considerations.
This building is part of a campus of other building that are located in a commercial zone. The sign is in
context with the other signs on the neighboring commercial buildings.
4. The character of the neighborhood:
The proposed use shall not be detrimental to the general amenity of the neighborhood character so as to
cause a devaluation of neighboring property or material inconvenience to neighboring inhabitants or
material interference with the use and enjoyment by the inhabitants of neighboring parties. The proposed
sign will not be detrimental to the neighborhood character.
The owner (Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation) of the neighboring property,
Buttermilk Falls Park, commented that there is no issue with the sign and no other neighboring property
owner has come forward to comment on the proposal.
5. Public Interest:
The protection of public interest and the desirability of maintaining open spaces, views and vistas shall be
considered insofar as possible. The proposed signage will not affect open spaces, views, and vistas.
The Planning Department points out that the sign is not illuminated at night. Therefore, it is not causing
any light pollution on the area. The Board also commented that the color scheme of red and white will be
flat against the building which is also red and white. This will not result in a glaring sign that will tend to
be so prominent to passersby or affect any open spaces, views, or vistas.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Steven Wolf.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair Yes
Teresa Deschanes Yes
Steven Wolf Yes
Determination of BZA Based on the Above Factors:
The BZA, taking into consideration the five factors, fmds that the Benefit to the Applicant outweighs the
Determinant to the Neighborhood or Community. The BZA further fmds that variances from Sign
Ordinance, Section 272-6 B (1) is the minimum variance that should be granted in order to preserve and
protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
February 11, 2019
Sec , : • . rd of Zoning Appeals Date