ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2007
Members Present: Mr. Baroody
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Rejman
Staff Absent: Ms. Marteney (Conflict with another meeting)
Staff Present: Mr. Fusco, Attorney for City
Mr. Selvek
Mr. Hicks
APPLICATIONS
APPROVED: 23 Boston Avenue
26 Westlake Avenue
283-301 Genesee Street
101 Prospect Street
217 Gant Avenue
Mr. Rejman: Good evening, this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have:
23 Boston Avenue
26 Westlake Avenue
283-301 Genesee Street
101 Prospect Street
217 Gant Avenue
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2007
23 Boston Avenue. R1 zoning district. Al Giannone, applicant. 4’ west side area variance for proposed addition.
___________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 23 Boston Avenue, are you here? Please approach the podium, use the mike and tell us your name.
Mr. Giannone: My name is Al Giannone.
Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. Giannone: I would like to put a, I got a hot tub and I wand to enclose that hot tub, building a 10 x 12 foot basically a room, won’t have access from the house, will have to go outside, just basically a roof and 4 walls.
Mr. Fusco: Is it already finished?
Mr. Giannone: It is not completely finished yet. Originally we were just going to buy a gazebo and not have it attached to the house. I am very cramped for space back there I got a variance about 10 years when I put in a pool and now we have very little room back there and when we started working on it we realized we weren’t able to find a gazebo and plus it would probably cost me three times what this would. So we started building it, I don’t know what I was thinking, I am sure I knew I should have gotten a permit but didn’t, it is my fault, so we went ahead and started doing it and realized that we needed a permit and variance and so on. That is where we are at now. Again, it was my fault.
Mr. Rejman: That is where you are now. The pictures are very helpful, looks like you have one of our infamous small lots, do you know what your lot size is>
Mr. Giannone: To be honest with you no, but it is extremely small.
Mr. Rejman: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Hearing none, we will come back to the board. Also he has a petition here of neighbors, looks like 7 names on it.
Mr. Giannone: Yes.
Mr. Darrow: Mr. Giannone, what size did you say this was?
Mr. Giannone: 10 x 12 roughly.
Mr. Darrow: Thank you.
Mr. Giannone: Your welcome.
Mr. Rejman: Questions from the board?
Mr. Baroody: Space for your hot tub?
Mr. Giannone: Yes, basically.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Al Giannone of 23 Boston Avenue a 4 foot area variance
Mr. Fusco: I think he needs more than that according to Code Enforcement Officer, he needs 7 foot
Mr. Darrow: Oh, 7 foot.
Mr. Rejman: He needs 4 foot.
Mr. Fusco: I stand corrected; it is 4, my apologies.
Mr. Darrow: So we do need 4, let’s keep it as it is. A 4-foot area variance for the purpose of constructing approximately a 10 foot by 12 foot attached addition for the purpose of a spa to the rear of the house.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Mr. Rejman
ABSTAINING: Mr. Bartolotta (came in late)
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. Giannone: Thank you very much.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2007
26 Westlake Avenue. R2 zoning district. Gene Lee, applicant: Stephen Mills, agent. Area variance for one dwelling unit. (Conversion from single-family to two-family).
__________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 26 Westlake Avenue please.
Mr. Mills: I am Stephen Mills; I am here for Gene Lee.
Mr. Rejman: OK. Counsel would you like to bring us up to date, there is a typo.
Mr. Fusco: I think some where on the agenda is says that this is a use variance, it is not, I caught this last when I was going over it our agenda and asked the staff about it. This is an area variance as I understand it a two family is an allowable use in this particular district. The reason any variance is needed what so ever is to convert a single family into a two family there are various density rules, yard size rules, side yard rules and what not. This presently does not conform to so that an area variance is required not a use variance so that is just a typographical mistake in the agenda.
Mr. Rejman: We will have an update later on to show it as an area variance. Let me start with this, any one wishing to speak for or against this application? None. Questions from the board?
Mr. Westlake: It is an area variance, what do they need from us?
Mr. Darrow: Variance on the density. Because the density is currently 46, 40 is allowable, this will make it 47, so they need a variance going over the variance by 7.
Mr. Westlake: There is also in front of me a parking deal here.
Mr. Darrow: Brian, can you frame the issues here before us?
Mr. Hicks: Parking is not an issue for the area here, there is parking for the two-unit structure, and they brought the parking up to Code.
Mr. Westlake: I don’t know what I am working on here.
Mr. Hicks: Mr. Darrow mentioned that the allowed density for that district would be 40, the density study showed 46 for that area. If we allow this one other apartment to be added to that area it would bring the density to 47, meaning that we will now be 7 over versus 6 over.
Mr. Westlake: I understand that portion. Now what is this parking?
Mr. Hicks: The parking is just a proposed plan so that the board can see how the parking lay out will be in the back yard because they are required to have 4 off street parking.
Mr. Westlake: Nothing in the letter I got from you people.
Mr. Rejman: No, you wouldn’t because all that is, is he is showing us what is going to happen. Brian is going to require that before he gets his C of O.
Mr. Hicks: Correct.
Mr. Rejman: Can’t get a C of O without parking.
Mr. Westlake: We won’t be called back in two weeks to go over this.
Mr. Fusco: The granting of this area variance regarding the density issue would not give them any license to have different parking than is required by law.
Mr. Hicks: We are requiring that the application by as complete as possible so that board can see all the parameters that are going to have to be on that parcel. He has given us two options for parking.
Mr. Fusco: The question before you tonight will only be the density issue. If at the end of the site plan process he feels he needs further relief for parking he has to come back to us again.
Mr. Rejman: So this is the first time in a long time I don’t ever remember us running into a density issue. They are very rare.
Ms. Brower: We had one when I first started it was an apartment building.
Mr. Rejman: Right, it was just a residence right.
Mr. Westlake: The one behind the Post Office was the first one.
Mr. Rejman: All right. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? Questions and discussion.
Mr. Darrow: I have none.
Mr. Rejman: Just impacted by one and we are putting a better property on the tax rolls.
Mr. Mills: In our plans we want to make it handicap accessible. There are 40 units in that area, very few are handicap accessible and I actually have someone in a wheelchair that wants to move in. But I need to correct the parking problem so that they can have a van and be able to unload the wheelchair at the end of the ramp. Brian was kind enough to point that out when I turned the paperwork into him, that was my fault I didn’t realize there was a parking issue until after I turned the paperwork into Brian.
Mr. Rejman: This is something that before I thought this was a usage
Mr. Darrow: My concern was that it was in an R-2, legal in an R-2.
Mr. Rejman: But we are looking at density.
Mr. Darrow: I think the density issue is the part we need to up in our discussion.
Mr. Rejman: Further questions? We will close the public portion, have a seat and we will discuss this.
Mr. Westlake: I understand the density but do we also have to do something about the parking tonight too?
Mr. Darrow: No, that is not our concern. He can’t get a Certificate of Occupancy unless that has been graded when Brian does his inspection. But my concern about density is not too many years ago, a few million dollars in grant money when into rehab Westlake and to drop the density and to bring around a multi-family back down to 1 or 2 units, I really am not in favor of us trying to turn back around the good work that had happened there, it is a gorgeous house, don’t get me wrong, it is a beautiful big Victorian, but I really, I think we are sort of hurting ourselves voting against the City’s master plan by putting by making the density even worse or more non-compliant than it is right now. That is the only problem I
have with the project.
Mr. Rejman: OK, other feelings, concerns.
Mr. Baroody: This was a double that was abandoned for more than one year so they had to reapply to make it a double again.
Mr. Fusco: It is a single. This is a single family home in a R-2 district where two families are allowed.
Mr. Darrow: What is not allowing it currently is the fact that the density is too high.
Mr. Bartolotta: But it was subdivided as a two family before this gentleman purchased it.
Mr. Darrow: I bet it was more than a two family when they went through on Westlake and cleaning it up.
Mr. Rejman: HUD had it down as a multi.
Mr. Darrow: It was probably a 3 or 4 unit then.
Mr. Baroody: Mr. Mills for Mr. Lee purchased this as a double.
Mr. Mills: It was a double and we didn’t have to do anything to the building to make it into a double, it was a double when we bought it. I don’t think it was ever any more than a double because there was no evidence in there of another kitchen or bathroom. Only stairwell is on the outside of the house.
Mr. Rejman: Other comments, other concerns. We all have to do a balancing act, but I am looking at, we are going to have a nicer piece of property than it was a few years ago, the impact is 1, if the impact was 5, is that a good trade or bad trade?
Mr. Darrow: It is a tough choice; I think there is a lot of positive that will come out of it. They are not changing the character of the neighborhood, the parking will be out back which Codes will see to, it just that I thought we needed to look at that point.
Mr. Westlake: It is an absentee landlord that is a little bit of a concern. I am more comfortable seeing Mr. Mills as a contact in Auburn. They spent a lot of money cleaning it up it was a terrible section of town at one time.
Mr. Darrow: It is the one thing I didn’t realize driving by and seeing the outside that it is currently a two family inside. I was lead to believe upon reading this and doing a drive by that it was one big beautiful one family Victorian and were going to take substantial resources to convert into a 2 family.
Mr. Rejman: That was my thinking too.
Mr. Baroody: I read it twice because he said in his letters that they put in over $70,000 into it, there were two electrical hookups, two gas hookups. The pictures were great of the inside, the way it was written was confusing.
Mr. Darrow: I was confused about it, I feel a lot better about it now knowing what it is about.
Mr. Fusco: Only guidance I would give to your concerns which of the various standards do you think are potentially harmful, a detriment to the nearby properties.
Mr. Darrow: Just the fact that we are making an area that is non-conforming more non-conforming by increasing the density. I was completely on the fence about it, I don’t have a closed mind about this, after knowing the big factor is that it is a two unit, that is a factor and that was my only concern that we are adding non-compliance, that was my only concern.
Mr. Fusco: One of the things that is a little lacking in the application is the exact verbiage that the applicants want in the form of a motion or relief. Perhaps Brian can help us as to what the language should be when we make a motion.
Mr. Darrow: Would it just be a variance for density? That is what I had in my mind.
Mr. Rejman: By 1?
Mr. Darrow: The current density if we give it by 1 if the density should change up the road that could actually impact him, I would have to word it so that he was allowed to exceed or grant a variance on the density factor for the neighborhood because the density can fluctuate, so we can’t tie it to a specific number.
Mr. Fusco: Are you comfortable with making a motion?
Mr. Darrow: I am comfortable making a motion if the board is comfortable to go forward.
I would like to make a motion that we grant Gene Lee of 205 Hillside Drive, Pacifica, CA. a density variance to exceed the current density maximum of 40 at 26 Westlake Avenue for said property.
Ms. Brower: I’ll second that.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: The application has been approved.
Mr. Mills: Thank you, I appreciate it very much, Gene does as well. Anything else you need from me?
Mr. Rejman: I guess you will be working close with Brian on your C of O.
Mr. Mills: I will see him. Thank you very much.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2007
283-301 Genesee Street. C1 zoning district. HDL Property Group, applicant. Area variances for 12.93 square footage of the allowed 50 square feet maximum for signs on Columbus Street; 72.51 square feet of the allowed 50 square feet maximum for signs on Genesee Street; LED reader board/animated pylon sign (if allowed 40.03 square feet variance also).
__________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 283 – 301 Genesee Street, are you here?
Mr. O’Neill: Mr. Chairman, my name is Mike O’Neill, I am representing HDL Property Group with respect to the Walgreen’s Development and we are here for a couple of sign variances.
Mr. Rejman: We tabled this from last time.
Mr. O’Neill: We advertised it incorrectly so we had to come back.
Mr. Westlake: They were suppose to be here at the last meeting but they couldn’t make it.
Mr. Rejman: The special meeting. Is there any one here wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing none, seeing none, come back to the board. How did we do it last time?
Mr. Darrow: We put it in a motion, but the problem I have right now is there was some number mix up so I want to readdress the numbers before making a motion.
Mr. Rejman: Go ahead and do that.
Mr. Darrow: Now there was if I remember correctly you needed 62.93 square feet
Mr. O’Neill: The building mounted sign, yes.
Mr. Darrow: So you need a building sign of 62.9, 2 square feet, now was it 1293 was that the pole sign?
Mr. O’Neill: Height of the building sign 17 feet we need 22 feet.
Mr. Darrow: That is 5 feet.
Mr. O’Neill: Variance on a free standing sign from 66 square feet to 99.61 square feet and last is the reader board, we made two motions a couple of meetings ago, one was for the square footage of the reader board which was 40.03 square feet, that was a separate motion.
Mr. Darrow: So just to confirm with counsel and Codes there is a 62.93 square foot variance for the building sign, a 5 foot height variance height of the pole sign, there is a 33.61 square foot variance for the area of the pole sign in the first motion and then a second motion will address the LED reader board for the attention getting device and the fact of the square footage of it.
Mr. Rejman: Do you want to do three separate motions or just reaffirm the motions that we did.
Mr. Darrow: Do we have what those motions were?
Mr. Rejman: No.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant HDL Property Group LLC of 7085 Manlius Center Road, East Syracuse, New York a 62.93 square foot area variance for the sign attached to the building, a 5 foot vertical height variance for the over all height of the pole sign and 33.61 square foot sign variance for the pole sign for their property at 283 – 301 Genesee Street, soon to be known as Walgreen’s.
Mr. Westlake: I second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant HDL Property Group LLC of 7085 Manlius Center Road, East Syracuse, New York, a variance for an attention getting sign and a 40.03 square foot sign variance for said attention getting device for their property at 283 – 301 Genesee Street, soon to be known as Walgreen’s.
Mr. Baroody: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody
Mr. Darrow
Mr. Westlake
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Rejman
VOTING AGAINST: Ms. Brower
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. O’Neill: Thank you for your help and appreciate the cooperation and Walgreen’s will take note of all the assistance that is given from the City. Thank you.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2007
101 Prospect Street. C3 zoning district. Auburn Community Federal Credit Union, applicant. Area variance to install LED reader board to building.
__________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 101 Prospect Street, are you here? State your name for the record please.
Mr. Lafaro: John Lafaro.
Mr. Rejman: Tell us what you would like to do there.
Mr. Lafaro: With your permission Mr. Chairman, I have some sheets that I can pass around that show the exact square footage of each of the signs that are proposed. As you can see the signs all conform with the size requirements. Only question the board may have is with regard to the LED sign which the Code speaks to directly. Ours is 11 square feet and it is only one sided as opposed to two sided like some of the others are in the area, Kinney Drugs and Walgreen’s.
Mr. Darrow: Your hand out here has 12 square feet.
Mr. Lafaro: 12 square feet?
Mr. Darrow: Yes.
Mr. Lafaro: Then it is 12 square feet.
Mr. Rejman: Brian, why are we here? This is an attention getting device.
Mr. Hicks: Yes, it is.
Mr. Fusco: Why is it here?
Mr. Darrow: Can’t have flashing lights.
Mr. Hicks: The Code, the wording as far as attention getting the availability to change copy quick speed.
Mr. Rejman: Any one wishing to speak for or against the application? Hearing none, seeing none, come back to the board.
Mr. Darrow: My only concern would be any neighbors across the street there on Prospect, but there is no one here. Usually when there is something on Prospect we have a lot of neighbors.
Mr. Westlake: Did the letters go out right?
Mr. Selvek: Yes.
Mr. Rejman: It is getting more acceptable, when the first one came out, but now everybody has them and most of the time you don’t even notice them any more.
Mr. Darrow: We hemmed and hawed extensively over Walgreen’s and we already had one in town at Kinney’s Drugs and I will be the first to admit I don’t really notice them my only concern was the flashing to the neighbors, they are not a 24 hour business.
Mr. Baroody: It is on the front facing on Grant Avenue.
Mr. Darrow: True.
Mr. Lafaro: The nature of the business is such that the use is going to be conservative a Credit Union. This is Ken Colton from Allied Sign Company.
Mr. Colton: The sign will be facing down the hill towards Grant Avenue, not facing a residential area.
Mr. Westlake: Facing towards Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Mr. Darrow: That is great. I understand now.
Mr. Westlake: I live up there it doesn’t bother me.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we grant Auburn Community Federal Credit Union a variance to mount an attention getting device sign on their building at 101 Prospect Street, as noted in submitted plot plan.
Mr. Baroody: I second that.
Mr. Rejman: Wait, discussion?
Mr. Fusco: Let me ask this. Here is the definition of an attention getting device – any pennant, flag, valence, banner, propeller, spinner, streamer, search light, flashing light, balloon or similar devise or orientation designed for the purposes of attracting attention, promotion or advertising.
Mr. Darrow: Did it have flashing light in there?
Mr. Fusco: Then it goes on to say or it defines a flashing sign as any directly or indirectly illuminated sign which exhibits changing natural or artificial lights or color effects by any means whatsoever, however the term flashing sign must be used else where in the statute because it is not in the Ordinance because it is not used in the attention getting device provision from which this application seeks relief.
This is my point here if we start with the premise that a flashing sign doesn’t meet this definition then isn’t a sign that flashes a use change not an area change. In other words he is not saying he needs a bigger sign, he is saying we need a different kind of use. You have the interpretation power to do three things as the Zoning Board of Appeals. Give a use variances, area variances and give special permits where the Ordinance allow you can also do a 4th thing which is to make an interpretation Do you feel that these LED lights violate the definition that I just read to you?
Mr. Darrow: Absolutely. I think it is something that would behoove us not to retain so that we can see where attention-getting devices are going to be put.
Mr. Rejman: We need to keep a leash on it.
Mr. Westlake: I can see where the first reader board came up because it was different in size, so I can see us doing that. But this one doesn’t, the only thing that this does if you say an LED light is an attention getting device I can see your point there, but it is the proper square footage
Mr. Darrow: Right but attention getting devices are currently not allowed.
Mr. Rejman: The issue is LED is younger than the Codes. The Code was written 20 years ago.
Mr. Baroody: In 1993 or 1994.
Mr. Darrow: We are not giving a use variance, we are not giving an area variance, we are giving them a special permit for a specific use.
Mr. Fusco: You only have the right to grant special permits when the Ordinance specifically gives you that. You do have an interpretative jurisdiction and an area and use variance jurisdiction; you have no inherent special permit jurisdiction.
Mr. Darrow: That would bring into recourse every attention giving device that we have issued being Kinney’s, two Walgreen’s that would bring all of them back into question.
Mr. Bartolotta: The definition he just read, was that for an attention getting device?
Mr. Fusco: Yes. Attention getting device is the specific variance that this applicant asks for in this case.
Mr. Darrow: I can’t think pick it out of my book right now right down to exposed light bulb or flashing light bulb are also considered in the attention getting device.
Mr. Fusco: I will read it to you one more time - any pennant, flag, valence, banner, propeller, spinner, streamer, search light, flashing light, balloon or similar devise or orientation designed for the purposes of attracting attention, promotion or advertising. The only two words in this definition which this sign violates is the flashing light. Now as a matter of law, I have heard from Mr. Darrow, do the rest of the members in your interpretative powers feel that these new LED signs, after the law was written, met that definition.
Mr. Bartolotta: Not so sure that it does, the side of the flash is it stationary?
Mr. Darrow: It rolls.
Mr. Bartolotta: How often does it roll?
Mr. Colton: I have done it for many towns all over New York a lot of it comes to the interpretation and using what the board has done in the past, they put a limit on how frequently they change it so that it is not flashing out there. The Town of Salina every 3-second when it changes that is flashing if we change it every 30 seconds then that is not a flashing sign.
Mr. Darrow: We did that with Grant Avenue Walgreen’s. Put a time limit on it.
Mr. Colton: You are now getting into the technology of signs where you can do color, you can do animation, and you can just about do anything with them.
Mr. Westlake: I guess what I hear attention getting device, it would mean to me like balloons a big circus out in front of a place to draw people in for a grand opening or something. I am not quite so sure that a LED reader board itself is an attention getting device in a true sense of
Mr. Darrow: That is something we can discuss and vote on, but we have to remember if we vote on this now as not an attention getting device we are actually setting a precedence and we can’t go back on that.
Mr. Westlake: I talked about this the first reader board for Kinney’s Drugs and every one disagreed with me and so did Mr. Hicks, that it is an attention getting device, at that time I didn’t think it was, but every one else did.
Mr. Darrow: We can vote on it as an interpretation
Mr. Westlake: Now this gentleman here wanted a larger one
Mr. Darrow: Maybe that is what we should do an interpretation and vote and see if it is an attention getting device or not, if we feel it is not an attention getting device, no permit is needed, it is just that no other moving sign like this will ever have to come before us.
Mr. Rejman: I am not sure we want to do that.
Mr. Darrow: This is something should be taken up by council and the mayor to change, not by us.
Mr. Fusco: The trouble with that is the nature of technology is that things are always being invented after these laws are written and they always will be, so that is why the law gives you interpretative powers for you to decide whether this new thing that has been invented does or does not conform with this general language that was written before this was ever invented.
Mr. Bartolotta: The only problem with that we wouldn’t be able to place any kind of conditions on that if we decided it wasn’t an attention getting device.
Mr. Rejman: Is there a way we can keep this particular application of this sign is not an attention getting device.
Mr. Colton: That is the point I was going to bring up especially with a sign like this, there is just an interpretation an isolated interpretation where it was considered it takes up a very small portion of the entire sign itself, it is monochromatic and it is only a very limited.
Mr. Darrow: We are now back to the point where if they want to change this message every 3 seconds we are right back at that, it is a vicious circle.
Mr. Rejman: But it is a 12 square foot sign, if they came before us and said we want a 40 square foot sign it is a different story. This particular size sign, this location is not can you say that.
Mr. Fusco: Did you present for that board a certain set of specifications this is what we are going to do with this sign?
Mr. Colton: We agreed upon how often that a message can come up and we got an interpretation what is the message. Now if I wanted to put on there I can always put a time on it, if I wanted to put “a great rate of” and I couldn’t get it on one message so if I continued the message or did a new message, so most of the time it is saying we don’t allow you to flash you can simply set defaults to the machine not to flash. Come out with a message, it will stay there and won’t rotate for a certain amount of time, something in the neighborhood of 30 seconds.
Mr. Fusco: And I don’t want to speak for people that are not here but the some members board has expressed concerns about these types of things in the past. Now we are hearing a third member expressing a concern tonight. I think we have a split board here right now. It might behoove you to come back to this board at its next meeting saying here is what we want to do with this sign and then this board were it to approve your application or approve the interpretative jurisdiction that it has could condition its decision to keep you within what ever those parameters are. It would be helpful to me, again I don’t want to speak for these 6 people tonight, and I don’t have a vote.
Mr. Darrow: The big thing was first Walgreen’s sign, because if I remember correctly it was because of the intersection. We kind of have an intersection but it is removed probably 150 to 200 feet from it so I can see why they need the sign but our concern was the rate of it the message changing detracting from a drivers at the intersection and causing an accident.
Mr. Westlake: As usual we have to do each individual case like this one here it is questionable as to whether it is an attention getting device. The other one in my mind is an attention getting device because that is why they put it up there and larger than it is suppose to be.
Ms. Brower: I don’t think we need to take them one by one, my objection the last one I don’t like the neighborhood it is a little too close I think, there is no competition, so why put a big sign there trying to get attention
Mr. Darrow: There is an Eckerd’s right on the other corner.
Ms. Brower: I know, but it still feels like it is turning that area into a strip signs and I think all signage is attention getting and actually I would be willing to vote on this tonight.
Mr. Westlake: Like you said Mr. Chairman, let’s take this up in a workshop and not tonight.
Mr. Darrow: Are we just going to vote for whether we feel it is attention getting or not or are we just going to
Mr. Baroody: Vote attention getting device
Mr. Darrow: Counsel brought up use variance
Mr. Westlake: Take it up at a workshop later, we have already passed 4 of these signs so far in the City this is just one more.
Mr. Fusco: If this type of sign is a different use than what is allowed that is to attract attention than a use variance and not an area variance is the right thing. There is no question there is no area there is no dimension here that is violated. Legal sign but the question is the use of the sign.
Mr. Darrow: I am not against the sign; I was only concerned when I thought it was going to face residential houses. Now they are showing it will face Grant Avenue, I have no objection to the sign. I want to make sure that we do it properly that is all.
Ms. Brower: Let’s stipulation the time for the message.
Mr. Darrow: Six seconds like we did for Walgreen’s? A minimum of six second. OK.
I would like to make a motion that we grant Auburn oh, I think I have a motion on the floor that I would like to strike. I would like to strike my previous motion. Please strike that, I would like to make a new one.
I would like to make a motion that we grant Auburn Community Federal Credit Union of 101 Prospect Street, for the purpose of attaching a attention getting device to said building at said address as submitted in plot plan with a turn over rate not to exceed less than 6 seconds per message.
Mr. Baroody: I second that.
Ms. Brower: Not to exceed less than
Mr. Darrow: That is a little twisted. Not to remain on the sign for - must remain on the sign at least 6 seconds or more.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: It has been approved.
Every body here remember Auburn Savings Bank? When did they put their sign up, remember the sign that they had.
Mr. Baroody: Put it up in 1951.
Mr. Rejman: We are going to do this under a workshop.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2007
217 Grant Avenue. C3 zoning district. U.S. Signs, Inc. on behalf of Sherwin Williams, applicant. Area variance for signage exceeding the allowable amount.
__________________________________________________________
Mr. Rejman: 217 Grant Avenue.
Mr. Lafaro: The sign itself is channel letters and a small sign to the left hand side of the diagram that I hope you all have. I have one in color.
Mr. Darrow: This is going in the place where On Cue is now?
Mr. Lafaro: Yes. This actually does conform with the size requirements, the only question was whether or not the background which is not part of the sign and I would respectively request that the board interpret it not being part of the sign it is just a background paint which is the color blue, that the white Sherwin Williams channel letters and the small sign to the left.
Mr. Darrow: We don’t have a color picture.
Mr. Lafaro: I can pass this around.
Mr. Darrow: This is sign is going to be the entire façade from bottom to top?
Mr. Lafaro: The actual sign consists solely of the channel letters which you see before you and the small icon.
Mr. Darrow: Is the blue illuminated?
Mr. Lafaro: No, the blue is really paint, simply the background and again I respectively ask the board to interpret that as such a painted background.
Mr. Westlake: Why did Brian turn it down?
Mr. Hicks: Background color calculated as part of the sign because it is associated with the business.
Mr. Darrow: We had one years back I don’t know who would remember this, Geatanos Pizza, they painted their side of the building the Italian colors, then they put a sign on top of it and we had to interpret whether the colors of the building were actually part of the sign or not.
Mr. Rejman: I remember that.
Mr. Darrow: I believe we went as one because that is the color scheme they picked out for the building
Mr. Rejman: A flag cannot be interpreted as a sign.
Mr. Darrow: Plus here the façade is blue, it is not illuminated.
Mr. Westlake: Right, why is it here?
Mr. Darrow: For our interpretation.
Mr. Westlake: On Cue was the same way.
Ms. Brower: Is it in the Code saying they are not allowed to have this bright color in the background?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, it is, what we do is calculate the whole size of the frame of the blue that is how the Code states calculation for signage and due to the fact that the front of the store it is of different color.
Mr. Baroody: So we have to make an exception to that?
Mr. Darrow: We can interpret that it is the façade color and not the sign color because it is Sherwin Williams color or we can vote for a variance.
Mr. Fusco: I have no problem with the granting of variance as I understand what Brian is saying, what I would recommend though is the lettering there be a condition including the lettering so that
Mr. Darrow: Lower case is 21 inches upper case is 28 inches and then their logo is 2.6 x 52 inches.
Mr. Lafaro: I would agree that there is a danger in granting the variance of the sign itself would violate the spirit of the Code to prevent it from being a grossly obtrusive sign because it would be that large.
Mr. Darrow: The variance stays with the building.
Mr. Rejman: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this application? None.
Mr. Darrow: I would like to make a motion that we find for 217 Grant Avenue the future space to be located by Sherwin Williams that the submitted sign of upper case letter 28 inch high, lower case letters 21 inch high, a log of 52 inches by 2.6 inches over all width 43 feet 8 inches designate the actual sign it self in the Sherwin Williams blue background is part of the faced and not part of the sign.
Ms. Brower: I’ll second that motion.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Mr. Baroody
Mr. Darrow
Ms. Brower
Mr. Westlake
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Rejman
Mr. Rejman: Application has been approved.
Mr. Lafaro: Thank you very much.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
| 
